iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Anne Patterson Outed By WikiLeaks As A Truth-Teller

First Posted: 11/29/10 03:27 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Anne Patterson

The public expression of modern American diplomacy is typically so dull and disingenuous that one of the pleasing revelations from the unauthorized release of State Department cables is how blunt American diplomats are when they communicate with each other.

Behind the scenes, there's a lot of truth-telling going on. The cables suggest that if the Department of State, rather than Defense and the CIA, had been given the leading foreign policy role over the past decade, things might have turned out a lot better.

Only a couple hundred of the more than 250,000 cables obtained by WikiLeaks have been released thus far, but one correspondent being singled out for her straight-shooting is Anne W. Patterson, a career foreign service officer whom George W. Bush appointed as ambassador to Pakistan in 2007. Patterson returned to Washington last month after more than three years at that notoriously difficult posting.

Washington's dealings with Pakistan have been particularly tense in recent years, with the government frequently resisting U.S. pressure to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaeda elements within its borders, and with concerns growing over the safety of Pakistani nuclear materials. At the same time, CIA-controlled drones have been firing missiles at targets inside Pakistan.

On the surface, it's mostly smiles -- but not in the cables. The Guardian's Simon Jenkins writes:

Some stars shine through the banality such as the heroic envoy in Islamabad, Anne Patterson. She pleads that Washington's whole policy is counterproductive: it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and the military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal". Nor is any amount of money going to bribe the Taliban to our side. Patterson's cables are like missives from the Titanic as it already heads for the bottom.

And the New York Times calls attention to a dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel:

Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, "if the local media got word of the fuel removal, 'they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons,' he argued."

The BBC has since reported that Pakistani foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit confirmed the report:

The facility is in Karachi and was built through the US Atoms for Peace programme under President Dwight Eisenhower.

Mr Basit told the BBC: "The US has been asking for the last two years that we should return the reactor and the fuel which had been given.

"We dismissed this, reiterating that the reactor was our property, so there was no question of it being returned."

US officials have long expressed concern that Islamist militants in Pakistan could target the country's nuclear programme in an attempt to get their hands on the materials to build their own bomb.

And Patterson's successor is now trying to deal with this outbreak of honesty. The Guardian reports:

Washington's new ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, published an article today in Pakistan's English-language paper, the News, which aims to pre-empt unflattering references to the Pakistani government and its military....

The cables likely to trouble Munter, which include allegations that the military is colluding with militant groups and unflattering pen portraits of leading politicians, were written by his predecessor Anne Patterson, a sharp, well-regarded diplomat who left Islamabad a few months ago. The Pakistan files are due to be published in the coming days.

Patterson served from July 2007, succeeding Ryan Crocker, until early October. In late October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Patterson with the "Secretary's Distinguished Service Award."

Patterson has spent 37 years in the Foreign Service. A native of Arkansas and graduate of Wellesley College and the University of North Carolina, she was ambassador to Colombia from 2000 to 2003 and ambassador to El Salvador from 1997 to 2000.

She has also served as the assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, as deputy permanent representative and acting permanent representative to the United Nations, and as the department's deputy inspector general.

Last year, Patterson was blunt in an interview with PBS's "Frontline". Asked what can be done about Taliban militants based in Pakistan's ungoverned territories but fighting in Afghanistan, Patterson replied that she hoped the Pakistani military would eventually be able to assert control over those areas.

But, she said, "you can't kill your way out of this. That's not the option. There might be other alternatives -- reconciliation process, offering job opportunities, I don't know. But it's not just by force."

Patterson could not be reached for comment Monday morning, but her husband, David R. Patterson, called her "a career diplomat's diplomat." Asked about what led her to leave Islamabad, David Patterson told The Huffington Post that his wife "was there a good deal longer than is normal in Pakistan," and "had been asking for a replacement for months."


*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

The public expression of modern American diplomacy is typically so dull and disingenuous that one of the pleasing revelations from the unauthorized release of State Department cables is how blunt Amer...
The public expression of modern American diplomacy is typically so dull and disingenuous that one of the pleasing revelations from the unauthorized release of State Department cables is how blunt Amer...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,283
  • Pending Comments
  • 3
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (69 total)
01:42 PM on 12/05/2010
First of all hurrah for WikiLeaks and for brave Assange but I have to say that in reading over the posted cables, I haven't found too much that couldn'thave been gathered by a careful reading of reputable press. If one obtains all information from one or two sources of course a lot of this will come as quite a shock.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Soma99
10:16 AM on 12/02/2010
This week, Judy Woodruff of PBS interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Hadley, former national security advisers for presidents Carter and Bush. The subject of the interview was Wikileaks.

Brzezinski implied that wikileaks *could* be an intelligen ce operation of a foreign government . So break out the tin foil hat for a former national security advisor because he implied that wikileaks could have a specific intent besides how the media portrays it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How easy would it be to seed this to make sure that it was slanted a certain way?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI : Seeding — seeding it is very easy. I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportan t sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligen ce parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives .
photo
TigerLilyCo
Bloody hell!
08:07 AM on 12/01/2010
This whole WikiLeaks thing is baffling....I mean isn't America some kind of technological super power? So how is it that a Private can access sooooooo much sensitive and classified information sooooo easily? If he can, then be assured that our enemies can too! Can't they shut this site down? But then again, I guess shutting it down here wouldn't stop it from leaking everywhere else in the world...

It's a catch 22 really....on the one hand it is refreshing to hear the truth, on the other hand why put so many lives at risk in war zones with such an act? Many countries stand to gain a "black eyes" from such revelations. So what is the point of the leak?

It is an eye opener to listen to news reports from other countries to see how America is regarded in the eyes of the world....
photo
Axekick
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolve
11:31 AM on 12/01/2010
No, the United States is not a technological super power otherwise China would not be capable of hacking into the Pentagon's computers.

But I agree the whole story is baffling, the United States is powerful enough to have prevented these leaks especially considering the forewarning that preceded them.
11:33 PM on 01/16/2011
I believe most of the information are from whistleblowers, insiders who got tired of all the secrecy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ekata
spiritualist, clown, and male nun, a Yankee Hindu
05:07 PM on 11/30/2010
I rather wonder if the leaks weren't on purpose to gain some leverage and movement that otherwise couldn't have been achieved in normal channels.

For example: if Iran now hears that all the Arab states are telling the US to bomb them it may decrease their militancy, or hubris in negotiations; their position is revealed to be weaker.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cynth
[Your ad here.]
10:57 PM on 11/30/2010
While I don't think these leaks were intentional on the part of the US government, I do agree that there can be some benefits from some of these disclosures. Whether those benefits will out-weigh the fall-out and the long-term impact, that remains to be seen. It will be hard to build trust in the near-term, though.
photo
Axekick
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolve
11:33 AM on 12/01/2010
That is my suspicion too. If the alleged "leaks" do not wreak major havoc for the US then we will know they are either fiction, intentionally leaked, or both.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Social Shrink
04:04 PM on 11/30/2010
"You can't kill your way out of this" ... thank you, Ms. Patterson. Agreed.

www.thsocialshrink.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
05:08 PM on 11/30/2010
No, but they can kill you!!!!! She supports the Pakistani war on Afghanistan, India and the US! So much for our diplomats!
12:58 PM on 12/01/2010
The problem being that our warhawks are prone to try it anyhow.
02:26 PM on 11/30/2010
She probably could have stayed in Pakistan.She is not the type of American they don't like.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
05:09 PM on 11/30/2010
Yeah, she supported Pakistan "frequently resisting U.S. pressure to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaeda elements within its borders, and with concerns growing over the safety of Pakistani nuclear materials. At the same time, "

In other words, making war on us and India.
HarkaDahl
rude impatient judgemental and filled with love
06:21 AM on 12/01/2010
She resists the crackdown because it will be counter-productive. To destabalise the state of Pakistan is to create a monumentally bigger problem for the US than the one it's dealing with now. Its not hard to understand. The US is in a lose-lose situation in this region because it's policies are confused/amoral and it arms everyone in sight. It has to withdraw military involvement from both India and Pakistan (sworn rivals) to achieve local stability but it's corporations and their associated parasites will not let it. It is possible that eventually China will be in a position to mediate through economic muscle, thereby washing away the last semblance of US influence in south Asia and consolidating it's own rise. Patterson is a hard headed realist. I visit Pakistan frequently and i believe her assessment is accurate.
photo
Blodo
Time to build a better world
01:39 PM on 11/30/2010
These leaks are a byproduct of a larger trend toward the democratization of information. This is being driven, first, by the rapid evolution and decreasing cost of communication technology (internet, cell phones, cam corders, etc.) and, second, by the growing appetite this technology fuels for increased government tranperancy and accountability.

The future is becoming the "now" faster than we can tweet.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjlim
01:19 PM on 11/30/2010
Smart WOMAN......no surprise her that acute observations were ignored.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
05:10 PM on 11/30/2010
What's so smart about he? She thinks that it's okay to give safe haven to terrorists making war on her own country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjlim
09:15 PM on 11/30/2010
Please do not reply to me with unintelligent comments. That's we she could balance the budget while you're on here annnoying people. Shouldn't you be out attending a teabagger meeting or watching Faux News?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SilviaMaria
12:10 PM on 11/30/2010
"Patterson has spent 37 years in the Foreign Service". This is the kind of people we need in government career employees instead of career politicians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
05:32 PM on 11/30/2010
X2
fanned and faved
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morgansher
just disgusted in general
11:56 AM on 11/30/2010
Thank you, Ann, for your rare courage in speaking the truth to a government that clearly has deep seated challenges in facing such truths.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
05:11 PM on 11/30/2010
How is demanding our troops fight with both hands behind their backs telling the truth to the government?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
teaksmama
01:41 AM on 12/01/2010
huh? how is ordering our troops to fight in any illegal, immoral war even remotely acceptable? what do you mean, that it's better to have the troops live in the dark? the fact of these underhanded behind the scenes manipulations is what is getting us into wars all over the globe. the more information shared, the better. there was zero of the predicted fallout from the afghanistan revelations. no extra folks killed. just the usual what we've come to accept dead soldiers and civilians and still no one knows the reasons. i'd say fighting without knowing the truth is fighting with ones hands tied.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skeller
10:20 AM on 11/30/2010
I don't understand the point of the Wikileaks State Department leaks. As I understand it, the concept of "whistleblower" refers to uncovering wrongdoing. By all accounts so far, the Wikileaks documents just show the State Department going about its business in a professional manner. I do not see how making public these private communiques is a blow for good government if they show good government in action, but their release makes good government--franks exchanges among diplomats and their sources--more difficult. I understand the newspapers publishing stories based on the material--that's what new outlets are for--but I don't think either the leaker(s) or Wikileaks have covered themselves in glory.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:55 AM on 11/30/2010
it reveals the lies and propaganda disseminated by the US day in day out when it shows that they themselves actually know the truth of the reality of situations which they publicly lie about and disfigure the the truth of

that is why it is important.

you read in the cable some good intellegent and very reasonable accounts and opinions, but on the news we see that consequent actions fly in the face of those same opinions or else outright lie about a current situation in a manipulative and imperialistic fashion

therein lies the rub
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
05:12 PM on 11/30/2010
What lies?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:59 AM on 11/30/2010
for example you find a cable that is reasonable and balanced like a hypothetical cable: "there are no WMD in Iraq, we should not invade"....

sounds like reasonable good government of course, but then the actions and statements are completely at odds with this

what these cables prove is that the americans are actually quite astute and know that in many international cases are actually doing the immoral thing rather than the right thing.... it's almost a confession of the crime when the perpetrator who says he innocently walked into a mess or didn't quite know what he was doing is then faced with a signed copy of his planning and tactics

when the world knows there are three bottles on the wall, the cables show that the US knows there are three bottles on the wall, but we find that the US says there are no bottles and all it's poodles and sycophants then rush to agree with it, against the proof of their own eyes and the eyes of the world...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skeller
12:37 PM on 11/30/2010
But my point is that no public purpose has been served--beyond being interesting--by this particular document dump (at least so far). Of course there are extemely damaging government lies that might have been revealed by insider information: Tonkin Gulf and WMD are good examples. But secrecy per se does not seem to be always a bad thing, and the fact that sometimes it is used to obscure truths that the public should know does not justify hamstringing diplomats trying to understand what is going on in the world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:19 AM on 11/30/2010
It is NOT the media's job to prevent governments from being embarrassed. There appears to be no justification for the alarmists claiming lives are in danger and no security breaches. Rumor has that Wikileaks will next disclose documents and communications from Wall Street and the troubled banksters.
12:22 PM on 11/30/2010
Can't wait for those!!
08:01 PM on 11/30/2010
Governments should be more than embarrassed; they should be shamed and ridiculed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Devaron Namsaar
09:29 AM on 11/30/2010
The leaks in question will not harm anyone who is actually innocent and truthful. The only people who have anything at all to fear are the people who created the problems now being exposed. Liars cannot be protected. The only people who have anything to fear from this event are those who by their own words and actions are already guilty! Hurray for the little people, hurray for the people who are beginning to see the people and their lies and their treachery that have caused so much damage in this world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spilkus
I'm in the art world, for Pete's sake.
11:48 AM on 11/30/2010
How naive. We are dealing with the real world. Diplomacy is a game of strategy and you keep secrets in order to get things done. The only ones who are innocent and truthful are infants and should not work in the foreign service. All these leaks served to to was to make our diplomats lose face and become less effective.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
teaksmama
02:15 AM on 12/01/2010
not naive. diplomacy is a concept worldwide that means so much more than your deceptive trickery and manipulation limited interpretation. seriously. that's like agreeing to accept that being an elected official means lying and having affairs, by definition. the pure concept of having diplomatic relations should be our goal to attain. why settle for less?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:18 AM on 11/30/2010
It appears that some GOOD and some BAD may come from Wikileaks. Which will have the most weight?
07:41 AM on 11/30/2010
Arab Dictators urging the US to strike Iran

It is very unsual that Israel (Barak and Netanyuh) have been philosophical about Wikileaks and expressed the view that the leaks "have not damaged Israel." Hurrah for that!

The leaks seem to show that Iran's Gulf neighbors may have encouraged or would not be unhappy with a strike.

Iran is "suspected", "feared" to have a nuclear weapons program. No hard eveidence has been found and analysed by independent unbiased experts without an axe to grind. Therefore an attack on Iran may be a war crime or a very foolish and costly adventure.

Am I the only one who does not care how many Arab dictators are for a war against Iran? If Israel and Saudi Arabia want war they should have the courage to do it themselves, pay for it on their own dime and face the war crimes consequences themselves.
08:36 AM on 11/30/2010
Agreed... dictators do not represent the people. These monarchies are mostly enablers and collaborators for their own sake.
10:08 AM on 11/30/2010
Mubarak's political opponents are beaten, imprisoned and banned. Democracy in Egypt means "No matter how the people vote, Mubarak is the duly elected leader."

Who elects the Saudi King or the King of Jordan or any of these Arab heads of state?
12:34 PM on 11/30/2010
The comment "If Israel and Saudi Arabia want war they should have the courage to do it themselves­, pay for it on their own dime and face the war crimes consequenc­es themselves­." is naive and disingenuous.

A war in the Middle East between Israel and ANY Arab/Muslim nation would be like lighting a match to a gasoline tank, the entire region would go up in flames and the rest of the world, including US would have to become involved. These are no "backwater -Stans" that have constant tribal warfare, these are nations that are players on the world stage - we are ALL interconnected here.
02:42 PM on 11/30/2010
Read and try to understand before firing off half-cocked invectives.

The truth is that Israel did attack an Arab/Muslim nation very recently and did so quite mercilessly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OF0sJisZ7Y&feature=related