国务院是否在追捕亨利-基辛格？

一个官方仪式将表彰一位为跨越现实政治大师而付出沉重代价的外交官。

亨利-基辛格站在一个听证室里。

1973年9月11日，亨利-基辛格。| 亨利-格里芬/美联社照片

作者：迈克尔-夏弗（MICHAEL SCHAFFER

06/24/2022 04:30 AM EDT

已更新。06/24/2022 08:59 AM EDT

Michael Schaffer是POLITICO的高级编辑。他的首都专栏每周在POLITICO杂志上发表。

当国务院下周举行集会，将一间会议室献给阿切尔-K-布拉德时，官方的主角将是这位已故的美国外交官，他在1971年抗议美国的一个盟友在当时的东巴基斯坦进行令人震惊的血腥镇压。但另一个名字可能会萦绕在人们的脑海中，不为人知：亨利-基辛格，这位前国务卿与美国对许多学者现在理解的种族灭绝的支持关系最大。

不难理解，这一荣誉是对这位99岁的现实政治大师的隐性耳光，它是在基辛格曾经统治过的雾谷大楼里颁发的--在那里，布拉德因为抗议他的政策而使自己的职业生涯脱轨。

这并不是说它是以这种方式进行的。对该部门来说，这完全是为了庆祝个人的英雄主义，而不是为了打击他在美国的对手。"正在组织纪念活动的南亚和中亚局副助理部长凯利-基德林（Kelly Keiderling）说：

"50年后，我们回想起当时需要的价值观，希望我们继续坚持这些价值观，作为我们自己职业道德的一部分。没有对基辛格进行体制上的斥责--或更广泛的特朗普之后对公务员异议的拥抱--的意思。

想读更多这样的故事？POLITICO周末》每周五都会提供扣人心弦的读物、聪明的分析和一点高尚的乐趣。

请注册订阅新闻通讯。

事实上，不管有没有恶意的基辛格客串，《血》的故事都有很多值得钦佩的地方。但它的中心冲突涉及到与白宫在民主价值、国家利益和联邦雇员职责方面的冲突--这种冲突在今天看来太有政治意义了，无论其意图是多么的非政治化。

作为一名职业外交官，阿彻·布劳德（Archer Blood）在1970年和1971年担任美国驻达卡领事，达卡现在是孟加拉国的首都，但当时是巴基斯坦贫困、动荡的东部地区的主要城市。在这个与世隔绝、由军队统治的省份任职，使布拉德成为二十世纪最严重的人道主义危机之一的美国高级见证人，一场打击分裂分子的运动爆发了对学生、知识分子和当地印度教少数民族的大规模屠杀。1000万难民逃往邻国印度。

巴基斯坦境内针对孟加拉人的种族灭绝的场景

美国外交官阿切尔-K-布拉德（Archer K. Blood）是见证了针对孟加拉分离主义分子的暴力行动的几位美国官员之一，该行动在当时的东巴基斯坦爆发了对学生、知识分子和当地印度教少数民族的大规模屠杀。1000万难民逃往邻国印度。| 美联社照片

"恐怖统治"，布拉德在巴基斯坦发起 "探照灯行动 "后不久发回华盛顿的电报中说。"数以千计的人被屠杀，其中有无辜者，也有据称有罪者。"在另一份电报中，他称这是 "选择性的种族灭绝"。

布拉德的问题是，华盛顿不想听到这个消息。就理查德-尼克松政府而言，巴基斯坦是一个重要的冷战伙伴，呼吁关注暴力事件的工作人员是一个不受欢迎的麻烦。尼克松和基辛格有他们的理由。那个致命的巴基斯坦政权正在为基辛格与中国的秘密接触提供便利；同时，孟加拉人的支持者包括苏联和印度，一个政府厌恶的莫斯科友好政府。(白宫的录音带记录了尼克松用种族主义术语嘲笑印度人的情景）。

根据当时的会议记录，时任国家安全顾问的基辛格甚至反对要求巴基斯坦人避免暴力。对于驻扎在受暴力困扰的达卡的官员来说，传达有关朋友被屠杀的报告，这是一项令人痛苦的政策，必须遵守。

在镇压的两周后，领事馆的年轻同事使用了该部门新设立的 "异议渠道"，旨在让外交官登记他们对美国政策的不满而不会因此受到惩罚。布拉德赞同并加入了该电报。用普林斯顿大学教授、前记者加里-J-巴斯的话说，这份文件 "可能是美国自己的外交官对美国外交政策发出的最严厉的谴责"，他写了一本关于布拉德的获奖书。

"我们的政府未能谴责对民主的压制，"电报中写道。"我们的政府未能谴责暴行。我们的政府没有采取有力的措施来保护自己的公民，而同时又不顾一切地安抚[西巴基斯坦]主导的政府，减少对他们可能产生的、应得的负面国际公共关系影响。我们的政府已经证明了许多人认为的道德沦丧。...美国公民表示厌恶。我们，作为专业的公务员，对目前的政策表示异议，并热切希望我们在这里的真正和持久的利益能够得到界定，我们的政策能够得到调整，以挽救我们国家作为自由世界道德领袖的地位"。

阿切尔-布拉德的画像。

阿切尔-布拉德，这位外交官将在下周国务院举办的聚会上以他的名字命名一个会议室。| 布拉德家族提供的资料

这份电报并没有改变美国的政策。但在华盛顿，特别是在国务院的文化中，被称为 "血电 "的电报产生了深刻的影响，这种影响一直在回荡。这封机密电报的泄露，让政府很是懊恼。华盛顿的九名雇员签署了一份备忘录，认可其内容。(除了巴基斯坦危机的具体细节外，我们很容易理解为什么第一次使用异议渠道会引起人们的钦佩。当官员们正在发表关于越南即将取得胜利的光辉报告时，工作人员对权力说出不受欢迎的真相的场面显得完全是英雄主义。

半个世纪后，不需要领导力教练也能理解为什么一个组织可能想要庆祝这种遗产。自 "血色电报 "以来的50年里，不乏一些不愉快的事情，而这些事情本来可以通过听取当地人的意见，远离群体思维来避免的。

当然，当时的情况并不是这样的。这封电报激怒了政府高层。在与尼克松的椭圆形办公室谈话录音中，基辛格称布拉德是 "达卡的这个疯子"。

在短时间内，布拉德被召回华盛顿，并被解雇。

他曾经是一颗冉冉升起的新星，现在却被安排做了一份人事工作。

一份批评性的年度评估报告指责他在反巴基斯坦的狂热中鼓动下属。在上司的压力下，他被借调到陆军战争学院，度过了基辛格的国务卿任期，直到基辛格离任后才担任另一个海外职务。他从未成为大使。

血腥电报

但故事并没有就此结束--无论是对布拉德还是对基辛格。

布拉德退休时是一个默默无闻的人物，但部分由于巴斯的书，他后来成为某种意义上的英雄，一个直率的职业人，说出了真相。"巴斯说："他是一位可敬的、高度专业的、极有才华的外交官员，在个人危险和职业危险的情况下履行了他的职业和道德责任。"他正是你希望为美国政府工作的那种人。"2004年他在科罗拉多州去世时，现已独立的孟加拉国政府派代表参加了他的葬礼。

与此同时，基辛格仍然是美国最有名的人物之一，但他的崇拜者的构成已经发生了变化，

原因与《血》的故事有关。

在过去的几十年里，

他一直被左派所厌恶，

在右派中也逐渐失宠，

首先是在小布什时代，共和党人拥护民主的推动。

(具有讽刺意味的是，当布什的道貌岸然的新纳粹分子高歌猛进时，外交部门--布拉德的家乡--被嘲笑为据称更喜欢冷血的、基辛格式的方法）。

在特朗普时代，美国共和党向一个完全不同的方向发展，但基辛格作为联盟、力量平衡和全球秩序的环球倡导者，永远不会成为 "美国第一 "的偶像。

"拜登政府，包括托尼，正在定期咨询他，"马丁-因迪克说，他是比尔-克林顿时期的前两任美国大使，巴拉克-奥巴马时期的中东特使，以及最近一本备受好评的关于基辛格的书的作者，指的是国务卿安东尼-布林肯。"这是他的弧线的讽刺之一，这些天他被自由主义者比保守主义者（包括我！）更欣赏。"

安东尼-布林肯和亨利-基辛格戴着面具时的谈话。

2021年10月7日，国务卿安东尼-布林肯与前国务卿亨利-基辛格在加利福尼亚州斯坦福市的招待会上交谈。| 国务院照片：罗恩-普日苏查

我联系了基辛格，询问他对国务院为他称之为 "疯子 "的人命名一个房间的看法。

在通过发言人发送的电子邮件中，这位前国务卿说，他不认为这是不恰当的。"

他写道：

"国务院向一位为追求职责理念而进行抗议的外交官员致敬是合适的。但这是对他自己任期内的一个耳光吗？不太可能。"

如果目的是对前任国务卿进行制度化的批评，那将是史无前例的。"

基辛格发言人的电子邮件还说，"你可能还注意到，在基辛格博士剩余的五年任期内，他的抗议并没有阻碍布拉德先生的事业，"巴斯对这种说法嗤之以鼻。"他可以在几十年后试图否认东西，但他所做的事实已经冻结在磁带上。"

华盛顿可能会正式将布拉德提升到万神殿，但对于坚持原则的雇员来说，今天的事情显然并不容易。也许自布拉德以来最著名的例子是前大使玛丽-约瓦诺维奇，她也是在与政府发生冲突后失去职位的--在她的案例中，她被指控破坏了让乌克兰挖掘唐纳德-特朗普的政治对手乔-拜登的污点的努力。尤瓦诺维奇在特朗普第一次弹劾前的听证会上作证，这是一个比异议频道有线电视更公开的论坛。但她也最终失去了工作。在特朗普被宣告无罪的前六天，她宣布退休。

周末》杂志

Is the State Department Trolling Henry Kissinger?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/24/henry-kissinger-archer-blood-state-department-00041932

Is the State Department Trolling Henry Kissinger?

An official ceremony will honor a diplomat who paid a steep price to cross the master of realpolitik.

Henry Kissinger standing in a hearing room.

Henry Kissinger on Sept. 11, 1973. | Henry Griffin/AP Photo

By MICHAEL SCHAFFER

06/24/2022 04:30 AM EDT

Updated: 06/24/2022 08:59 AM EDT

Michael Schaffer is a senior editor at POLITICO. His Capital City column runs weekly in POLITICO Magazine.

When the State Department hosts a gathering next week to dedicate a conference room to the memory of Archer K. Blood, the official man of the hour will be the late American diplomat who in 1971 protested a U.S. ally’s shockingly bloody crackdown in what was then East Pakistan. But another name will likely linger, unspoken: Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of State most associated with America’s support for what many scholars now understand as a genocide.

It’s not hard to interpret the honor as an implicit slap at the 99-year-old master of realpolitik, delivered in the Foggy Bottom building that Kissinger used to rule — and where Blood saw his career derailed for protesting his policy.

Not that it’s being billed that way. To the department, it’s all about celebrating an individual’s heroism, not sticking it to his stateside antagonist. “Fifty years later we think back to the values that were required at that point and hope that we continue to hold those values as part of our own professional ethics,” says Kelly Keiderling, a deputy assistant secretary in the South and Central Asian Bureau, which is organizing the commemoration. No institutional rebuke of Kissinger — or broader post-Trump embrace of civil servant dissent — is intended.

Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday.

In fact, Blood’s story offers a lot to admire, with or without a malevolent Kissinger cameo. But its central conflict involves a run-in with the White House over democratic values, national interests and the duties of federal employees — a clash that seems all too politically relevant today, however apolitical the intent may be.

A career Foreign Service officer, Blood spent 1970 and 1971 as the U.S. consul in Dhaka, now the capital of Bangladesh but then the major city in Pakistan’s impoverished, restive eastern wing. The posting in the isolated, military-ruled province made Blood the senior American witness to one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century, a campaign against separatists that erupted into a mass-murder of students, intellectuals and the local Hindu minority. Ten million refugees fled to neighboring India.

Scenes from the genocide against Bengalis in Pakistan

U.S. diplomat Archer K. Blood was one of several U.S. officials who bore witness to a violent campaign against Bengali separatists that erupted into a mass-murder of students, intellectuals, and the local Hindu minority in what was then East Pakistan. Ten million refugees fled to neighboring India. | AP Photos

“A reign of terror,” Blood reported in a cable back to Washington soon after Pakistan’s launch of “Operation Searchlight.” “Thousands were slaughtered, innocent along with allegedly guilty.” In another cable, he called it “selective genocide.”

The problem for Blood was that Washington didn’t want to hear it. As far as Richard Nixon’s administration was concerned, Pakistan was a crucial cold war partner and the staffers calling attention to the violence were an unwelcome complication. Nixon and Kissinger had their reasons: That same deadly Pakistani regime was facilitating Kissinger’s secret outreach to China; the Bengalis’ supporters, meanwhile, included the Soviet Union and India, a Moscow-friendly government the administration loathed. (White House tapes captured Nixon deriding Indians in racist terms.)

Kissinger, then the national security adviser, argued against even asking the Pakistanis to avoid violence, according to meeting notes from the time. To officers stationed in violence-haunted Dhaka, conveying reports of friends massacred, it was an excruciating policy to abide by.

Two weeks into the crackdown, young colleagues from the consulate used the department’s newly established “dissent channel,” designed to let diplomats register their disapproval of American policy without being punished for it. Blood endorsed and joined the cable. The document “was probably the most blistering denunciation of U.S. foreign policy ever sent by its own diplomats,” in the words of Gary J. Bass, a Princeton professor and former journalist who wrote an award-winning book about Blood.

“Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy,” the telegram reads. “Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its own citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the [West Pakistani] dominated government and to lessen likely and deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy. ... Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional public servants, express our dissent with the current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation’s position as a moral leader of the free world.”

A portrait of Archer Blood.

Archer K. Blood, the diplomat who will have a conference room named in his honor when the State Department hosts a gathering next week. | Courtesy of the Blood family

The cable did not alter American policy. But in Washington, and particularly within the culture of the State Department, what became known as the Blood Telegram had a profound effect, one that continues to reverberate. The classified cable leaked, to the administration’s chagrin. Nine employees in Washington signed a memo endorsing its content. (Full disclosure: One of them was my late father.) Beyond the specifics of the Pakistan crisis, it’s easy to see why this first use of the dissent channel drew admiration: At a time when officials were delivering glowing reports about imminent victory in Vietnam, the spectacle of staffers speaking unwelcome truth to power appeared downright heroic.

A half-century later, it doesn’t take a leadership coach to understand why an organization might want to celebrate that sort of legacy. The five decades since the Blood Telegram have featured no shortage of imbroglios that might have been avoided by listening to folks on the ground, far from the group-think.

Of course, it didn’t play out that way at the time. The telegram enraged administration higher-ups. In a tape-recorded Oval Office conversation with Nixon, Kissinger called Blood “this maniac in Dhaka.” In short order, Blood was recalled to Washington, sacked. Once a rising star, he was consigned to an HR job. A critical annual evaluation accused him of whipping up underlings in an anti-Pakistan frenzy. Pressured by his bosses to stay out of sight, he rode out Kissinger’s secretary of State tenure seconded to the Army War College, not taking another overseas post until after Kissinger had departed. He never became an ambassador.

Blood Telegram

The story doesn’t end there, though — for Blood or for Kissinger.

Blood was an obscure figure when he retired, but thanks in part to Bass’ book has since become a hero of sorts, the straight-laced career man who told the truth. “An honorable, highly professional, extremely talented Foreign Service officer who did his professional and his moral duty when it was personally dangerous and professionally dangerous,” Bass says. “He’s exactly the sort of person who you want working for the United States government.” When he died in Colorado in 2004, the government of now-independent Bangladesh sent representatives to his funeral.

Kissinger, meanwhile, remains one of the most famous figures in America, but the makeup of his admirers has changed, for reasons relevant to the Blood story. Always loathed on the left, in the past couple decades he fell out of favor on the right, too, first as Republicans embraced democracy-promotion during the George W. Bush era. (Ironically, when Bush’s moralistic neocons were riding high, the Foreign Service — Blood’s home — was derided for allegedly preferring a more cold-blooded, Kissingerian approach.) The GOP swung in a radically different direction during the Trump years, but Kissinger the globetrotting advocate of alliances, balance-of-power and global order was never going to be an idol for the America First set.

“The Biden administration, including Tony, is consulting him regularly,” says Martin Indyk, a former two-time U.S. ambassador under Bill Clinton, Middle East envoy under Barack Obama, and author of a well-reviewed recent book on Kissinger, referring to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “It’s one of the ironies of his arc that these days he’s more appreciated by liberals than by conservatives (including me!).”

Antony Blinken and Henry Kissinger talking while wearing masks.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a reception in Stanford, Calif., on Oct. 7, 2021. | State Department photo by Ron Przysucha

I reached out to Kissinger to ask how he felt about the State Department naming a room for the man he’d called a “maniac.” In an email sent via a spokesperson, the former Secretary of State said he didn’t think it was inappropriate. “It is appropriate for the State Department to honor a Foreign Service Officer who protested in pursuit of his conception of duty,” he wrote. But is it a slap at his own tenure? Unlikely. “If the purpose was an institutionalized criticism of a preceding Secretary of State, it would be unprecedented.”

The email from Kissinger’s spokesperson also said that “you might also note that his protest did not impede Mr. Blood’s career during Dr. Kissinger’s remaining five years in office,” a claim that Bass scoffs at: “He can try and deny stuff decades later, but the facts of what he did are frozen on the tapes.”

Washington may be officially elevating Blood to its pantheon, but it’s not clear that things are any easier today for employees who stand on principle. Perhaps the most famous example since Blood, former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, also lost her post after running afoul of an administration — in her case, being accused of undermining an effort to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump’s political rival Joe Biden. Yovanovitch testified at the hearings ahead of Trump’s first impeachment, a much more public forum than a dissent-channel cable. But she, too, wound up out of a job. Six days before Trump’s acquittal, she announced her retirement.

The Weekend

Gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun. Because even power needs a day off.

D.C. Power Players Are Paying Thousands of Dollars to Find Dates

BY JESSICA M. GOLDSTEIN

Is the State Department Trolling Henry Kissinger?

BY MICHAEL SCHAFFER

There Is a Major Rift Dividing the White Working Class — And Democrats Are Clueless

BY LISA R. PRUITT

An Actual Therapist’s Advice for Kellyanne and George Conway, and All of Us

BY JOANNA WEISS

The Weekend

POLITICO Weekend flies into inboxes every Friday. Don’t miss it!

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this column misspelled Kelly Keiderling’s name.

FILED UNDER: PAKISTAN, FOREIGN POLICY,

POLITICO

搜尋此網誌

謝東森deepl

国务院是否在追捕亨利-基辛格？

留言

張貼留言