Listen to the article
Diplomacies need harmony to accomplish a state’s objectives. But the revelations published by Le Figaro in France and Axios in the United States have shown that Paris and Washington are going through a rough patch; many diplomats and civil servants are contesting the “excessively pro-Israeli” positions of their countries.
On October 7, following the surprise attack launched by Hamas against Israel, waves of condemnation swept through Western embassies, all of which gave full support to Israel’s right to self-defense. Calls were made to President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, high-level surprise visits were paid in Tel Aviv and the region, military aid was sent, etc. Western capitals, with Washington at the helm, stood in favor of Israel, all the while deepening the gap with other influential capitals in Asia, Latin America, and the Arab world, highlighting the already visible differences between the so-called “Global North and Global South.”
While support for Ukraine since February 24, 2022, in order to “protect democracy and freedoms” against the Russian invaders has been unwavering, the retaliatory Israeli bombings in the Gaza strip that killed thousands, mostly civilians, have been considered by some embassies, especially in the Global South, as disproportionate. Despite many calls for a ceasefire and/or a humanitarian truce made by its “Western” allies, Tel Aviv has refused to halt its military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Dissent memo and note to the Quai d’Orsay
Discontent has spread within the US State Department since the start of hostilities in the Middle East. On October 18, former director at the State Department’s political and military bureau, Josh Paul, resigned publicly “following a political disagreement related to the continuous lethal support for Israel.”
According to the American media outlet Axios, three dissent memos signed by tens of officials from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were also sent to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, criticizing Washington’s weak position vis-à-vis Israel. One of the memos was signed by over 1000 USAID staff members, including more than 200 employees stationed in the Middle East, according to information published by the American newspaper, The Post. Two telegrams were even sent in the first week of the conflict, calling upon the American administration to review its positions with regard to Israel, insist on a ceasefire, and propose “a serious plan” for sustainable peace through the creation of a Palestinian state. The third telegram urged officials to publicize some of the criticism made against the Israeli Prime Minister to dilute the administration’s pro-Israeli stance.
In Paris, tens of diplomats from the MENA region wrote a collective “note of dissidence” to the Quai d’Orsay, contesting President Macron’s pro-Israeli turnaround, according to information shared by journalist Georges Malbrunot. In an article published Monday evening on Le Figaro’s website, Malbrunot explained that the contesting ambassadors “pointed out that the people in the Middle East have had difficulty understanding France’s pro-Israeli stance at the start of the conflict, one that we consider a total departure from our traditionally balanced position towards Israelis and Palestinians.” The signatories “are saddened to realize that, in many countries of the Middle East and the Arab Maghreb, the most severe criticism is addressed, evidently, to the United States and Great Britain, but also to France, as the protests in front of their respective embassies clearly demonstrated.” Malbrunot adds: The authors of the note warn that the trust crisis between France and the Middle East is “serious” and likely to “last.”
Diplomats versus executives
This divergence between diplomats and their respective executives is no recent problem; many of the seasoned diplomats — stationed in Western countries — have been complaining about the fact that their governments’ foreign policies have been determined by men and women with short mandates without consulting specialized state officials who have been studying this matter for years, sometimes spanning their entire careers.
Last year, a historic strike affected the French ministry of foreign affairs, during which over 600 French diplomats rallied against Emmanuel Macron’s reform of the public service, aimed at eliminating the positions of foreign affairs advisors and plenipotentiary ministers — the two highest categories at the Quai d’Orsay. Only the minister would be spared. The former foreign affairs minister and Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, stated that it is “a historic mistake” and warned against a “loss of independence, competency, and memory that can weigh heavily in the coming years.”
In the United States, internal dissent between the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the White House is inherent to the very structure of the decision-making body, notably within the national security council, a major actor when it comes to American foreign policy. The weight of the military, security, and intelligence departments in the council and the officials’ national or electoral interests occasionally overshadow the diplomats’ recommendations. The latter can either abide by the decisions made by their superiors or resign.
In 1971, the “dissent channel” was put in place, allowing officials to contest the policies of the public authorities without fear of retaliation, as diplomatic memos are supposed to remain confidential. This system helps Secretaries of State assess the activities of their departments without risking the loss of their own officials, as it happened in 1968 when 266 diplomats resigned to protest against former President Lyndon Johnson’s secret operations in Vietnam. These “dissident” diplomatic memos have, so far, never had any tangible effect on American foreign policies.
