Keep Germany down

17. Februar 2022

Sh*t, a for­mer US ambassa­dor is not on message.

Bet­ter not report any of it in the main­stream of wes­tern media. Bet­ter not ask him to com­ment. Bet­ter make up tal­king points (to be used in polit talk­shows), that the issue star­ted in the ear­ly nine­ties. Bet­ter finan­ce think­tanks and ent­i­re insti­tu­tes ful­ly. Bet­ter push for state­ments of non ger­man poli­ti­ci­ans about ger­ma­nys poli­tics, and take over the media cir­cuit to make the inqui­ry “if ger­ma­ny is not in line with US announ­ce­ments” an accu­sa­ti­on and the most pres­sing issue over the past week.

Bet­ter go with wes­tern propaganda.

Mat­lock has taught diplo­ma­cy at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty, Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty, Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty and Hamil­ton Col­le­ge. In a 1997 inter­view, Mat­lock offers some advice to pro­spec­ti­ve diplo­mats: have an opti­mistic natu­re, get a libe­ral edu­ca­ti­on, do not expect to chan­ge the world, know the coun­try, know your own coun­try, faith­ful­ly repre­sent your government, find the mutu­al inte­rests, and remem­ber that timing is ever­ything.[13]


Sin­ce lea­ving government ser­vice, Mat­lock has occa­sio­nal­ly joi­ned with other experts to cri­ti­ci­ze U.S. for­eign poli­cy. On June 26, 1997, he signed an Open Let­ter to Pre­si­dent Bill Clin­ton cri­ti­ci­zing plans for NATO expan­si­on.[60] His rea­son for oppo­si­ti­on, as given in tes­ti­mo­ny befo­re the Sena­te For­eign Rela­ti­ons Com­mit­tee, was his belief that NATO expan­si­on would pre­clu­de signi­fi­cant nuclear arms reduc­tion with Rus­sia, and con­se­quent­ly incre­a­se the risk of a nuclear attack by ter­ro­rists.[61]

Mat­lock drew the ire of many Repu­bli­cans during the 2004 pre­si­den­ti­al elec­tion cam­pai­gn when he signed the Offi­cial State­ment of Diplo­mats and Mili­ta­ry Com­man­ders for Chan­ge, which cri­ti­ci­zed the poli­ci­es of Pre­si­dent Geor­ge W. Bush and endor­sed Sena­tor John Ker­ry for pre­si­dent.[62]

On Jan 4, 2007, Mat­lock joi­ned with Geor­ge Shultz, Wil­liam Per­ry, Hen­ry Kis­sin­ger and Sam Nunn to advo­ca­te a goal of a world free of nuclear wea­pons.[63] On 23 Sep­tem­ber 2008 after a two-day con­fe­rence at the Car­ne­gie Endow­ment for Inter­na­tio­nal Peace, he joi­ned several other for­mer ambassa­dors to issue a joint state­ment on how Rus­sia and the United Sta­tes might move for­ward in their rela­ti­ons.[64] He has endor­sed the Glo­bal Zero Initia­ti­ve, a plan to eli­mi­na­te all nuclear wea­pons by 2030.[65] Mat­lock has also signed an open let­ter of May 13, 2011 asking the imple­men­tors of the New START trea­ty bet­ween the U.S. Rus­sia to make public the loca­ti­ons and aggre­ga­te num­bers of nuclear wea­pons, in order to pro­mo­te trans­pa­ren­cy and redu­ce mistrust.[66][67]

On Jan 18, 2011 he co-signed an open let­ter to Pre­si­dent Oba­ma urging a United Nati­ons reso­lu­ti­on con­dem­ning Israe­li sett­le­ments in the occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ry.[68]

Mat­lock has been open­ly cri­ti­cal of the Ame­ri­can mass media’s coverage of the Ukrai­ne cri­sis. On Jan 26, 2022 he publis­hed an review of Richard Sakwa’s arti­cle “Whis­per it, but Putin has a point in Ukrai­ne” on his per­so­nal blog, sta­ting agree­ment that Rus­sia desi­res a neu­tral Ukrai­ne and pushing back against claims that Rus­sia seeks to annex Ukrai­ne.[69] On Feb 15, 2022, he publis­hed an op-ed in, ques­tio­ning the vali­di­ty of the media nar­ra­ti­ve around the cur­rent sta­te of Russia–Ukraine rela­ti­ons, sta­ting “May­be I am wrong – tra­gi­cal­ly wrong – but I can­not dis­miss the sus­pi­ci­on that we are wit­nessing an ela­bo­ra­te cha­ra­de, gross­ly magni­fied by pro­mi­nent ele­ments of the Ame­ri­can media, to ser­ve a domestic poli­ti­cal end.”[70]

src: click

Hinterlasse eine Antwort