Diplomats Don't Lie

Several days ago, Marja and I watched the movie Thirteen Days about the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962.  United States intelligence discovers that the Soviet Union has placed medium- to long-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, able to strike anyplace in the United States.  In the middle of the movie, there is a scene in the United Nations General Assembly.  The Soviet ambassador makes a long speech attacking the US for bringing the world to the brink of war with its false claims about the missiles.  US Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, turns to him and asks bluntly, “Do you, ambassador, deny that the Soviet Union … is placing missiles in Cuba.  Yes or no?”

The Soviet ambassador equivocates, “You’ll get all the answers to your questions as this session proceeds,” he says.  Many in the General Assembly laugh, recognizing that the Soviet ambassador is not answering the question.

Why doesn’t the Soviet ambassador just lie and deny that the missiles are there? 

Because international diplomats must be able to trust that other diplomats don’t lie.  They may evade, they may equivocate, they may refuse to tell the truth, or they may use very particular language that seems it says one thing but can be interpreted to mean another.  But they don’t lie.

Later in the movie, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy talks with the Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko just hours before the US is about to attack Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba, which could easily precipitate a nuclear war.  It is essential that Gromyko and Kennedy be able to trust the other implicitly.  Both make important concessions to the other.  They ask each other concise, definitive questions: If the Soviet Union removes the missiles, will the United States guarantee to remove its own missiles from Turkey in six months?  Gromyko asks, “By what authority is this guarantee given?”  “By the highest authority” Bobby Kennedy replies, not even specifying naming President Kennedy, presumably to maintain deniability.  But the President will only guarantee the removal if the promise is not revealed publicly.  He will give to Gromyko no concrete evidence of the promises, no proof that the United States will in fact remove the missiles in Turkey.  Gromyko must be able to trust Kennedy based only on a verbal promise.  Essentially, the fate of the world depends upon two diplomats knowing that the other is trustworthy.

If we faced such a crisis today, could a foreign government trust that President Trump would keep his word?  I need only pose the question and the answer becomes obvious.  President Trump has lost all credibility.  Democracy itself depends absolutely upon a leader’s credibility.

Marja and I have also been re-watching the PBS series on the Roosevelts.  A recent episode showed Franklin D Roosevelt during the Great Depression.  Remarkable in the documentary is the importance of FDR’s “fireside chats” and other pronouncements to the country.  He doesn’t shy away from the difficulties the country will face nor the sacrifices the people must make.  But he assures the American people that we are strong enough to make it through.  And the people trust him.  He gives them the courage to make the sacrifices that will be needed. 

Can anyone believe that our current president could be so trusted?

I have written in other posts about trust (here, here, here, here and elsewhere).  But it’s always felt a bit vague, the examples squishy. Here—in the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Roosevelt’s inspiring fireside chats — we see trust in action. We see its centrality in a democracy.  A fundamental ground of democracy is truth.  Without trust in our leaders to tell the truth, our democracy will not survive.