WASHINGTON: All Democratic members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee have urged the new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson not to curb the State Department’s dissent channel that allows employees to express their views on policy matters.

In a recent statement, the White House press secretary told those Foreign Service officers who had signed a dissent cable in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration executive order that they “either get with the programme or they can go.”

In a joint letter, 11 Democratic senators told Secretary Tillerson that the White House statement was “a veiled threat to US State Department employees, intended to have a chilling effect.” The State Department’s foreign policy manual says that the dissent channel was created to allow its users the opportunity to bring dissenting or alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues to the attention of the secretary of state and other senior officials in a manner which protects the author from any penalty, reprisal, or recrimination.

The department strictly enforces the freedom from reprisal for dissent channel users and officers or employees found to have engaged in retaliation or reprisal against the users face disciplinary action. Dissent channel messages, including the identity of the authors, are strictly protected.

But Senators Ben Cardin, Chris Van Hollen, Robert Menendez, Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Coons, Tom Udall, Chris Murphy, Tim Kaine, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley and Cory Booker – all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – felt that this protection was now under threat.

In the letter, the senators said that US diplomacy and development professionals were deeply committed to protecting and extending America’s values and interests, and must enjoy the protection they to continue their work without the fear of reprisal. “We are certain that you and our nation will benefit greatly from a full and robust partnership between you and the staff of the department you lead,” they wrote.

“We believe strongly that good policy emerges from a healthy and substantive debate, including the review and consideration of alternative viewpoints and perspectives.”

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2017

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.