PDA

View Full Version : Federal work force revolt



troung
09 Jun 17,, 15:21
A Revolt at the State Department?

*
by Jonathan S. Tobin
June 7, 2017 1:57 PM


It’s not the role of American diplomats to join the resistance against Trump.

This week David A. Rank, the charge d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Beijing, did the right thing. Finding himself unable to carry out his duties in support of the policies of the elected government of the nation he serves, Rank resigned. On the other side of the world, another career Foreign Service officer did the opposite. Lewis A. Lukens, the charge d’affaires in London and currently the acting ambassador, tweeted his support of London mayor Sadiq Khan in the midst of the president’s cross-Atlantic Twitter spat with the mayor.

Unfortunately, many Americans will draw the wrong conclusions from the actions of these two men. Even those who disagree with his decision should respect Rank’s willingness to give up his job on a point of principle. Lukens may also get cheers, but he deserves none. Going out of his way to support Khan when Trump was exchanging barbs with him was more than a mistake. No matter what you think of Trump, when a U.S. diplomat inserts himself into such a dispute it’s a violation of the trust that the nation places in its representatives to loyally represent its government.

But the dilemma facing the State Department today may not be so much the actions of two men who have paraded their political disagreements with the president in public. The real problem may be those in the Foreign Service who are staying at their posts and off Twitter but may also be carrying out their duties with a lack of enthusiasm or with willful disobedience that will undermine Washington’s ability to act.

That liberals predominate among federal employees is not exactly a secret. That career Internal Revenue Service staff — acting either on their own or responding to clear signals from the Obama administration — chose to discriminate against conservative groups applying for non-profit status is a matter of record. But if many pockets of the federal bureaucracy tilt left, that is also true of the department tasked with carrying out the orders of the executive with respect to foreign affairs. In January, 1,000 State Department staffers signed a cable protesting Trump’s original travel-ban order. But, unfortunately, the problems in the Foreign Service go beyond such flamboyant, and clearly inappropriate, gestures. As the New York Times reported this week, tension between the White House and senior levels of the diplomatic corps is rising. If true, this is troubling because if senior personnel — people who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and who should be setting an example of apolitical behavior — are ready to step outside their lane and demonstrate their opposition to the government of the day, that raises the possibility that the president can no longer count on the loyalty of the Foreign Service.

It also feeds the sense on the part of some administration supporters that the flood of illegal leaks of classified information designed to embarrass Trump from government employees to the press is more than Washington business as usual. Monday’s indictment of an intelligence contractor who is alleged to have distributed National Security Agency documents to journalists is just the tip of the iceberg. What is happening now may be a symptom of an open revolt in which government officials join the “resistance” against Trump in a manner that resembles a coup in a banana republic more than the workings of American democracy.

Talk of a “deep state” seeking to thwart Trump sometimes tells us more about the grievances and complexes of alienated conservatives making this charge — especially those who fall under the rubric of the alt-right — than anything else. But when diplomats start acting like free agents rather than like the voice of those who were elected to set foreign policy, the notion of a conflict between career civil servants and those chosen to run the government stops being a paranoid fantasy.

It is true that in terms of his behavior and his views Trump is not a typical president. There is nothing irrational, let alone dishonorable or illegal, about opposition to any number of his positions, including his stance toward NATO, trade, the Middle East, and even immigration. But setting policy is still the purview of the president, not the civil service. *

As for Lukens, those who claim that in a normal administration praise for a mayor of a city in an allied country beset with terrorism would be the default reaction of U.S. diplomats are missing the point. Lukens is no novice. He was undoubtedly aware of the president’s statements about Khan. Trump’s tweets may be another example of the president’s astoundingly poor judgment. But it is not the job of the acting U.S. ambassador to Britain to correct or show up his boss. If Lukens and any other career Foreign Service officers feel they can’t serve Trump, then they should emulate Rank and resign. If not, they should keep their mouths and social-media accounts shut.

Perhaps many on the left as well as those who work inside the government feel that Trump is the exception that proves the rule and that they are morally justified when they seek to sabotage his administration. Perhaps others believe they should act to save a wayward leader from self-sabotage or from the consequences of his own folly. But whether or not they are right about Trump, he has the right to expect the Foreign Service to serve him as loyally as it did his predecessors. A nation whose government employees feel empowered to act against the government of the day ceases to be a democratic republic and starts down the road to tyranny and chaos.

Let’s admit that part of the current situation in the Foreign Service is the result of many important posts remaining unfilled more than four months into Trump’s administration. That’s helped create a vacuum in the carrying out of U.S. foreign policy that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is struggling to deal with. Some of this problem is due to congressional Democrats’ slow-walking all presidential appointments and jamming up the confirmation process. But the lion’s share of the blame belongs to a White House that appears to be unable to get its act together and vet all of the appointments that need to be made amid the chaos and infighting that currently reigns in the West Wing.

Foreign Service officers may have enjoyed their jobs more when they were carrying out President Obama’s will, but Trump’s mandate is no less legal.
But the inability of the administration to put men and women willing to follow Trump’s orders in place is no excuse for the Foreign Service to go rogue. They may have enjoyed their jobs more when they were carrying out President Obama’s will, but Trump’s mandate is no less legal. More to the point, following his orders is not optional.

As with the leaking of classified material, opinions about State Department sabotage of the White House tend to depend on where you stand on the political spectrum. Anyone who leaked information to expose Obama’s push to appease Iran or otherwise obstruct his plans would have faced no mercy from that administration and its supporters while being cheered by many on the right. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, State Department and NSA workers who play that game with Trump are being lauded as patriots by the Left while being decried as traitors by the Right.

But the principle ought to be the same no matter the policies or the president. It’s up to the voters to decide who runs the government and whether elected leaders should be replaced, not the bureaucrats or the diplomats who serve them. Government employees that work to undermine the president should be fired, and if their misbehavior involves violating security laws, prosecution is fully justified. Trump notwithstanding, mutiny in the State Department cannot be tolerated, let alone cheered for partisan reasons.......

astralis
09 Jun 17,, 15:39
Lukens may also get cheers, but he deserves none. Going out of his way to support Khan when Trump was exchanging barbs with him was more than a mistake. No matter what you think of Trump, when a U.S. diplomat inserts himself into such a dispute it’s a violation of the trust that the nation places in its representatives to loyally represent its government.

a US diplomat is obliged to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, he is not obliged to carry out a personal feud of the POTUS.

troung
09 Jun 17,, 17:02
As set by the President, homeboy should have shut up or quit.



NSA Leaker Hopes Being ‘White And Cute’ Will Help Get Her Off The Hook
CHUCK ROSS
9:51 PM 06/08/2017

Reality Leigh Winner, the 25-year-old government contractor who recently stole classified documents from the National Security Agency, has revealed her strategy for avoiding jail time: play the “pretty, white and cute” card.

The plan, which Winner reportedly discussed with her sister from the Georgia detention center where she resides, is somewhat hypocritical since she has said on social media that “being white is terrorism.”

“I’m going to play that card being pretty, white and cute, braid my hair and cry and all,” Winner told her sister during a phone call from the jailhouse, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari said in a court hearing in Atlanta on Thursday.

Winner was arrested over the weekend after she admitted to FBI agents that she stole a Top Secret report from her employer, Pluribus International, an Augusta, Ga.-based NSA contractor.

After printing out the report on May 9, she mailed them to a reporter with The Intercept, the news website.

The document, dated May 5, revealed that the NSA had determined that Russian hackers had attempted to hack into state voting systems across the U.S.

Winner, who was denied bail on Thursday, was discovered after a reporter with The Intercept contacted the NSA, which on May 30 informed the FBI of the breach. Investigators were able to determine that Winner was the person who leaked the documents to The Intercept.

Solari gave other details about Winner’s strategy going forward as well as her motivations for stealing the Top Secret report.

The prosecutor said in another jailhouse conversation, Winner told her mother that she wanted her to tell the media that she was afraid for her life. (RELATED: NSA Leaker Is A Bernie Supporter Who ‘Resists’ Trump)

“Play up that angle,” Winner told her mother, according to Solari.

Solari also said that FBI agents recovered notebooks in which Winner said she wanted to “blow up the White House” and move to Kurdistan or Nepal.

Winner, a former Air Force linguist, was outwardly critical of Trump in her social media posts. A Bernie Sanders supporter, yoga enthusiast and supporter of numerous left-wing causes, Winner appeared most agitated in recent months over the standoff involving the Dakota Access pipeline

Wooglin
09 Jun 17,, 17:44
a US diplomat is obliged to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, he is not obliged to carry out a personal feud of the POTUS.

Trump asked him to insert himself into the issue?

Otherwise, you seem to have it back-asswards.

astralis
09 Jun 17,, 19:06
Trump asked him to insert himself into the issue?

you seem to have little knowledge as to the duties, responsibilities, and the leeway given to a US Ambassador.

if an ally gets attacked, then yes, the Ambassador has the leeway to support our foreign partner, including tweeting out something utterly outrageous such as "I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack."

as long as the Ambassador doesn't go against official US policy, then there's nothing wrong with what he did. this isn't a freaking dictatorship, Trump's feuds don't constitute US policy.

the other example used, regarding David Rank, is much more on point. IF he had gone to the Chinese and told him that his own POTUS was full of sh*t on the Paris Agreement, or tweeted the same, then he would then be deservedly canned. because THEN he'd be contravening official US policy.

troung
09 Jun 17,, 20:41
Trump said the mayor of London sucks at his job and some unelected hack in the embassy used the official Twitter account to try and make the President look bad publicly.

Seriously the guy should be on the unemployment line.

snapper
09 Jun 17,, 20:47
I presume it is not the official policy of the US to denigrate the elected Mayor of London?

astralis
09 Jun 17,, 20:57
Trump said the mayor of London sucks at his job and some unelected hack in the embassy used the official Twitter account to try and make the President look bad publicly.

Seriously the guy should be on the unemployment line.

uh, so should Rex Tillerson be on the unemployment line for saying that the GCC blockade on Qatar should be eased (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/337149-tillerson-calls-for-ease-to-blockade-against-qatar)...days after Trump took credit for the blockade?

lol.

troung
09 Jun 17,, 20:59
presume it is not the official policy of the US to denigrate the elected Mayor of London?


The President laid in on the guy, an embassy official should have kept playing pocket pool or resigned.

astralis
09 Jun 17,, 21:25
considering how routinely members of the administration contradict the pearls of wisdom coming from Trump's Twitter feed, calling for the Ambassador's head because he didn't comport with a Trump feud is ridiculous.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pence-contradicts-trump-on-nato/vp-AAm03nt

http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/what-to-make-of-the-new-us-defense-secretarys-apology-tour/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0e873f11-9806-369d-bb7c-53270488a74b/defense-chief-contradicts.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-ambassador-donald-trump-two-state-solution-contradicts-israel-palestine-conflict-latest-a7584386.html

snapper
09 Jun 17,, 21:53
Would it not be wiser if your President did not conduct public personal feuds with elected Mayors but rather stuck to policy?

troung
09 Jun 17,, 22:02
For whatever reason he wanted the world to know the mayor of London sucks, if the acting ambassador has such a problem then air it through official channels, shut up, or quit.

snapper
09 Jun 17,, 22:16
For whatever reason he wanted the world to know the mayor of London sucks, if the acting ambassador has such a problem then air it through official channels, shut up, or quit.

So just because the President is a bellend everyone other US patriot and official should not try to clear up his sh*t? That is what diplomacy is about you moth brain.

troung
09 Jun 17,, 23:56
He is the bellwether for that part of the government.

Would be nice if be called homeboy in and hit him with the "you're fired."

TopHatter
09 Jun 17,, 23:59
That is what diplomacy is about you moth brain.

Stop the personal insults right now please. Thank you.

Wooglin
10 Jun 17,, 01:55
considering how routinely members of the administration contradict the pearls of wisdom coming from Trump's Twitter feed, calling for the Ambassador's head because he didn't comport with a Trump feud is ridiculous.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pence-contradicts-trump-on-nato/vp-AAm03nt

http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/what-to-make-of-the-new-us-defense-secretarys-apology-tour/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0e873f11-9806-369d-bb7c-53270488a74b/defense-chief-contradicts.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-ambassador-donald-trump-two-state-solution-contradicts-israel-palestine-conflict-latest-a7584386.html

Once again you're conveniently turning it around. He can not agree and keep his mouth shut. Nobody asked him to interject and he certainly isn't obligated to.

zraver
10 Jun 17,, 03:15
a US diplomat is obliged to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, he is not obliged to carry out a personal feud of the POTUS.

The president is the expression of the foreign policy of the USA, limited only by ratified treaty.

snapper
10 Jun 17,, 04:06
Was denigrated the elected Mayor of city in another country 'an expression' of US foreign policy? If so I am indeed worried.

astralis
10 Jun 17,, 17:05
wooglin,


He can not agree and keep his mouth shut. Nobody asked him to interject and he certainly isn't obligated to.

he certainly has the freedom to talk about what he likes-- as long as he doesn't contradict the President when it comes to policy. he's not a bloody commissar.

even then, that depends on how the President interprets things. for instance, Secretary Tillerson has repeatedly contradicted Trump in terms of policy. so has Secretary Mattis. so has NSA McMaster. for some reason i don't see you telling THEM to shut up, even though they're committing a rather more serious foul.

troung
10 Jun 17,, 20:04
he certainly has the freedom to talk about what he likes-- as long as he doesn't contradict the President when it comes to policy. he's not a bloody commissar.

He may not be a commissar but he sure isn't the President. He used the official embassy twitter account to go passive aggressive, he should have kept his hands in his pocket. This wasn't someone talking to a co-worker in a private conversation at the office, texting his wife, or blogging on his personal facebook account.


even then, that depends on how the President interprets things. for instance, Secretary Tillerson has repeatedly contradicted Trump in terms of policy. so has Secretary Mattis. so has NSA McMaster. for some reason i don't see you telling THEM to shut up, even though they're committing a rather more serious foul.

The guy directly and immediately contradicted the President who said the mayor of London is a failure. The acting ambassador belongs on the unemployment line, can do his resistance there.

=====
This is like a wimpy version of the oath keeper clowns.

Wooglin
10 Jun 17,, 23:57
wooglin,



he certainly has the freedom to talk about what he likes

No. He doesn't.

astralis
11 Jun 17,, 00:48
still waiting to hear if you think this applies to the VP, SECDEF, SECSTATE, NSA, UN Ambassador...

Wooglin
12 Jun 17,, 03:51
still waiting to hear if you think this applies to the VP, SECDEF, SECSTATE, NSA, UN Ambassador...

ok.

S2
12 Jun 17,, 05:56
"...you seem to have little knowledge as to the duties, responsibilities, and the leeway given to a US Ambassador."

As opposed to a Charge D'Affairs?

He's a seat-warmer and has stepped far beyond his portfolio. To that end he's farther adrift than even Trump.

Monash
12 Jun 17,, 09:44
In part this whole topic would only seem to be an issue if you accept that 'tweets' represent official government policy or alternatively a rebuttal of same. Not sure that is the case. I doubt for instance that TRUMP was expressing official government policy on the conduct of London's Mayor with an expectation that the UK Government would in due course respond with some form of official response or perhaps even a sanction against the Mayor. I also doubt in was the officials intention to rebuke or directly contradict the POTUS - even though that's how it looks. The trouble is tweets are a terrible medium for expressing any opinion unless they are carefully filtered and thought through before hitting 'send'.

Based on my albeit limited contact with consular and diplomatic staff they tend too take a long term view of managing their particular international relations. That's in part understandable because presidents, prime ministers,politicians and policies of all shades tend to come and go with monotonous regularity but regardless of whose in charge the long term relationship still has to be managed. So diplomats tend to think about relationship with other countries in terms of the years (sometimes decades) of work put into developing them while politicians tend to be much more fixated on the short term news cycle. Hence the continual fiction between the two camps regardless of who is in government.

Like any relationship (even a bad one - say the one between the US and Cuba) the State Dept has to work at keeping lines of communication open - even 'enemy states' do this. This includes from time to time having to 'explain' - or demand an explanation about media reports on something a public figure has said somewhere, some time. This is even more important when a senior politician says something likely to have a direct impact on a close, long term friend, as is the case here. If President Trump is really pissed off about what the official did I'm sure he can have his posting to London terminated - although I would suggest that if that did happen and it leaked out he would only be making a bad situation even worse. Lets see what happens.

Anyway that's my 10c worth.

astralis
13 Jun 17,, 03:23
i'm so glad i have Mattis for a boss-- the only one out of the whole group whom doesn't have a brown nose.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/praise-for-the-chief--trumps-cabinet-tells-him-its-an-honor-privilege-blessing-to-serve/2017/06/12/ddd3919e-4fa4-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html

By John Wagner June 12 at 5:31 PM

At Monday’s Cabinet meeting — the first President Trump had held with everyone on board — White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus spoke up to thank Trump “for the opportunity and blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda and the American people.”

Priebus said he was offering words on behalf of everyone in the room. But one by one, pretty much everyone else seated around the table took the opportunity to lavish their leader with praise, too, as the media looked on.

“It’s an honor to be able to serve you,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“I am privileged to be here,” said Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. “Deeply honored.”

“What an incredible honor it is to lead the Department of Health and Human Services at this pivotal time under your leadership,” Tom Price, secretary of that department, added when it was his turn to speak. “I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me and the leadership that you’ve shown.”

When other Cabinet members got the opportunity, they offered more specific adulation. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, thanked the president for his “direction in pulling that budget together.”

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao thanked Trump for visiting her department last week, relaying that “hundreds and hundreds of people were just so thrilled.”

And Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, after noting that some of his colleagues had touted their international travels for Trump, served up this: “A lot of us just got back from Mississippi. They love you there.”

The over-the-top praise of the president by his Cabinet came as the biggest items on his legislative agenda have made little progress, his administration continues to be dogged by investigations into his campaign’s ties to Russia, and his disapproval rating in the latest Gallup tracking poll rose to 59 percent.

The effort to buck up the boss drew immediate notice on social media, with some comparing Trump to King Lear. In the opening of the Shakespeare play, the aging king of Britain, having decided to step down from the throne, asks his three daughters to tell him how much they love him.

More biting still was a parody video sent out on Twitter by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“GREAT meeting today with the best staff in the history of the world!!!” Schumer wrote.

The video depicted him sitting at a conference table with three staffers.

“Lucy, how’d we do on the Sunday show yesterday?” Schumer asked one of them, his immigration counsel, referring to his appearance the day before on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“Your tone was perfect,” the aide said. “You were right on message.”

“Michelle, how’d my hair look coming out of the gym this morning?” Schumer asked next, posing the question of his director of scheduling.

“You have great hair,” she said. “Nobody has better hair than you.”

A Schumer budget adviser then chimed in, parroting Priebus.

“Now before we go any further, I just want to say thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda,” he said. Schumer broke into laughter.

Trump used Monday’s meeting to try to make a public case that — despite multiple investigations into election meddling by Russia and other distractions — his administration is racking up accomplishments at a record clip.

“Never has there been a president, with few exceptions — case of FDR, he had a major depression to handle — who has passed more legislation and who has done more things than what we’ve done,” said Trump, referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“I think we’ve been about as active as you can possibly be at a just about record-setting pace,” he added.

While Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders — more than any recent president at this point in his tenure — Congress has yet to pass any of his marquee agenda items. Those include a revamp of the Affordable Care Act, a tax-code overhaul and an infrastructure package.

Most bills that Trump has signed have been modest in nature, including several rolling back regulations adopted in the closing stretch of President Barack Obama’s tenure.

Conservatives have also touted the confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, which the president trumpeted Monday.

Trump began the meeting by berating Democrats, including Schumer, for taking longer than he wanted to confirm his Cabinet picks. The president also accused them of being “obstructionists” on his high-profile agenda items.

“If we had the greatest bill in the history of the world on health care, we wouldn’t get one vote from the Democrats, because they’re obstructionists,” Trump said. “That’s what they want to do. That’s the game. They think that’s their best political gain.”

Republicans are using a parliamentary maneuver to try to pass a health-care bill that doesn’t require any Democratic votes. After several tries, a bill was pushed through the House, but it is being rewritten in the Senate.

During the meeting, Trump also announced that he would hold a news conference in two weeks to lay out his administration’s plan to fight the Islamic State terrorist group.

He said that his administration had already taken some steps to cut off funding for terrorist organizations.

“We are stopping the funding of terrorism,” Trump said. “You have to starve the beast, and we’re going to starve the beast.”

Trump’s national security efforts were praised later in the meeting by his Cabinet secretaries, including Mike Pompeo, director of the CIA.

He told Trump he was “honored” to serve him but cut his remarks shorter than some colleagues.

“In the finest traditions of the CIA, I’m not going to share a damn thing in front of the *media,” Pompeo said to laughter.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was the most reserved in his comments, offering praise for the “men and women of the Department of Defense” but not Trump specifically.

tbm3fan
13 Jun 17,, 07:37
Makes you want to vomit. We have a moron for President who puts himself before the country in his quest for more and more self adoration. Sounds like he is still on the set of The Apprentice where everyone sucked up to him in order not to be fired. Can't wait till he designs his own uniform for all to wear.

DOR
13 Jun 17,, 10:17
"...you seem to have little knowledge as to the duties, responsibilities, and the leeway given to a US Ambassador."

As opposed to a Charge D'Affairs?

He's a seat-warmer and has stepped far beyond his portfolio. To that end he's farther adrift than even Trump.

The UK had a chargé d'affaires in Beijing for more than 20 years, and by 1972 I would imagine that seat was plenty warm.

Monash
13 Jun 17,, 10:32
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was the most reserved in his comments, offering praise for the “men and women of the Department of Defense” but not Trump specifically.

Well obviously he won't last long then.

Bigfella
13 Jun 17,, 11:27
Well obviously he won't last long then.

He was the only one in the room who doesn't care about climbing the greasy Washington pole, so he was the one who cares least about getting sacked. Trump dumping he or McMaster because they aren't sufficiently sycophantic would just increase the speed of that car heading toward the cliff. Only the hardest of hardcore apologists would be left defending him.

S2
13 Jun 17,, 16:25
"The UK had a chargé d'affaires in Beijing for more than 20 years, and by 1972 I would imagine that seat was plenty warm"

Hmmm...1952-1972? Fascinating. You project the same for our government to the Court of Windsor?

I suspect not.

Please try not to dissemble needlessly. This Charge D'Affaire is exceeding his portfolio and needs restraint or removal. I'd say that of any Charge D'Affair serving any administration.

snapper
13 Jun 17,, 17:18
Court of St James*

DOR
14 Jun 17,, 10:33
"The UK had a chargé d'affaires in Beijing for more than 20 years, and by 1972 I would imagine that seat was plenty warm"

Hmmm...1952-1972? Fascinating. You project the same for our government to the Court of Windsor?

I suspect not.

Please try not to dissemble needlessly. This Charge D'Affaire is exceeding his portfolio and needs restraint or removal. I'd say that of any Charge D'Affair serving any administration.

In April, 1949, the PLA attacked the HMS Amethyst on the Yangzi River (Edward Youde attempted to negotiate a cease fire with Ye Fei, future commander of the PLAN). That’s important to understanding the mood at the time.

London recognized Beijing in January 1950. China demands Britain close its consulate in Taipei before it will approve an exchange of ambassadors.

June, 1950, North Korea invades South Korea. The UK gets heavily involved in the US-led UN ‘police action.’ Again, historical context.

1961: After 11 years, the UK stops abstaining and votes in favor of the PRC being admitted to the UN.

1967: Red Guards sack the British Legation in Beijing. UK officials in Shanghai were also attacked. Riots in Hong Kong.

March 13, 1972: The UK and PRC exchange full recognition. Sir John Addis assumes the post. In 1974, he was succeeded by Sir Edward Youde, future Governor of Hong Kong and an active participant in the Amethyst Incident.

Formally, a chargé d'affaires is lower ranked than an ambassador, but there are plenty of precedents for such people carrying the full weight of the ambassadorship. Remember, GHW Bush was chargé d'affaires in Beijing, 1974-75.