ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

Deputy Secretary, Richard Armitage, was among those who did recognize this and dared
to say it but there were not many like him. Particularly irritating was when some people
in the Administration tried to find easy answers by blaming anti-Americanism on the
alleged failures of the Foreign Service and career diplomats. The argument was that the
culture of the Foreign Service did not value public diplomacy, and that ambassadors
spent too little time on it. At one time, there was a big exercise to find ways of motivating
our diplomats to give more public speeches and interviews. Now there is an element of
truth in public diplomacy not traditionally being a big factor in career advancement in the
Foreign Service, and also in saying that most U.S. embassies should probably do more in
this area. But to think that getting more speeches out of ambassadors was the answer to
anti-Americanism in the world was naïve and allowed people to downplay the role of
policy as a problem.
Q: What was the feeling in the Department on the effectiveness of Colin Powell?
PERINA: I am perhaps not objective here because I had already worked with Colin
Powell on the National Security Council in 1987-89, and I really admired him. I think he
was very popular in the State Department as an excellent manager of people. He did a lot
for the institution, and people sensed that and appreciated it. It was in stark contrast to the
feelings in this regard toward his predecessor and successor. But in terms of policy, I
think it was recognized, and he would recognize himself, that he was not as influential as
he or others would have hoped. He was generally outflanked on policy issues by
Rumsfeld and Cheney, and Condi Rice as NSC advisor was not of much help to him. I
sensed that he was never fully comfortable in the job of Secretary of State, and he was
never accepted into the real inner team in the White House. The real tragedy, of course,
was his UN speech prior to the Iraq invasion which in retrospect truly damaged his
reputation. I think his years in the State Department were very difficult ones for him.
Q: How was the transition from Powell to Rice perceived?
PERINA: It was a difficult transition, and not a particularly friendly one. You can see it
beginning with the way Colin Powell was dismissed. He resigned, of course, and he did
not want to stay on. But the announcement came almost like a dismissal. It was basically
a White House press release. No public statement by the President, no Rose Garden
farewell. It was quite extraordinary for a departing Secretary of State to get so little
recognition. It reflected the fact that Colin Powell had fallen out of favor in the White
House. Some of the political appointees on the Policy Planning Staff told me how Colin
was viewed as basically unsupportive of the President’s policies and how he was
suspected of leaking information to the press that distanced him from these policies. He
was even criticized by some of not doing enough to counter anti-Americanism abroad
because he did not travel enough to defend U.S. policies overseas. Of course, it was not
just Colin Powell but the entire State Department, and particularly the Foreign Service,
which was seen as unsupportive of White House policies. This has been the complaint of
many administrations but I think the distrust was especially bad at this time. So when
Condi Rice was announced as Powell’s successor, the suspicion immediately surfaced
that she was coming to clean up the State Department and get it under control. Her arrival
125