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