Tweet
AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN A. HEFFERN, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA
The Politic, The Yale Undergraduate Journal of Politics
Aug 13 2013
To learn more about the U.S. Embassy to Armenia, visit
http://armenia.usembassy.gov
By Rachel OConnell
John A. Heffern assumed his post as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia in
October 2011. A career member of the Foreign Service since 1982,
Heffern has previously been posted in Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia;
Ivory Coast; and China. He worked in Washington, D.C. as Executive
Assistant to Under Secretary for Political Affairs and as Deputy Chief
of Mission (DCM) at US NATO, in Brussels, Belgium. A native of St.
Louis, Missouri, Heffern earned his Bachelor of Arts from Michigan
State University.
The Politic: Why did you join the Foreign Service?
It is what I wanted to do since about age 12. My mother is from India.
She had British [family], since the colonial times. My father went to
India in World War II from Saint Louis, our hometown. They got married
in India. Then, they went to China together (still in World War II).
Then, they came back to St. Louis, and I was raised on stories about
their time in China and India. So I decided that that's what I wanted
to do. By age 12, I wanted to be the first U.S. Ambassador to China.
At the time, of course, we didn't have diplomatic relations with
China. Basically, my family history is what got me interested.
The Politic: You yourself are a father - you have five children. What
are the upsides and downsides of trying to raise so many kids while
moving around constantly and living abroad?
Well, there are indeed downsides and upsides, but by far, from
our family's experience, the upsides outweigh the downsides. Our
five children are now all adults and all of them in one way or
another have continued a bit of an international focus even when
they were free to make their own decisions. That means to my wife
Libby and me that we didn't ruin their lives by dragging them around
the world. We did indeed spend a lot of time overseas. We had five
or six assignment in East Asia, one in assignment in Africa, and a
couple now here in Europe. The fact that they continued - through
Peace Corps, or National Geographic, or other ways - [to have] this
kind of international focus in their careers convinced us that they
have benefited from the overseas experience.
The movement is hard, of course. They are constantly changing
friends, losing friends, moving from places they like. They liked
everywhere we lived, so that part has been good. I think it is good
having the kids close together. They are all about 18 months apart -
good Catholic family planning. They had each other, so as soon as
we got to a place, they would have somebody more or less their own
age to be on the school bus with and to sit at the lunch table with
when they arrived in a new spot. So they never felt totally alone,
the way that can happen in some families with a single child or with
a big age difference between the kids.
There was a lot of disruption. There was the pain of packing and
unpacking (and goodness knows that is a pain) and the government has
all these rules and restrictions, which were difficult. So there
is a lot of personal difficulty, but the fact is they enjoyed it,
my wife has enjoyed it, and they continued international [focuses]
one way or the other afterwards, and that is a good thing.
The Politic: Is there one experience, event or person in your host
country that has greatly influenced one or more of your policies? How
so?
What we are trying to do in Armenia - it is a country in transition,
with all sorts of challenges but all sorts of opportunities as well
- is to focus on partnerships with people who share our values and
are trying to push Armenia in the right direction and make this a
better country for everybody. There are many people here who fit that
category, many who get me excited to come to work every day, because I
know that - with a little bit of attention from the U.S. Embassy, the
U.S. government, and me personally and my wife, and with occasionally
some resources - we can really help push this country in the right
direction. [I deal] with NGOs here, and the press.
A gentleman I just spent time with on a recent trip - he was the
head of the Archaeological Institute, named Boris - has been very
inspirational for us. He has shown us that Armenia has a three, four,
five, six thousand year history. Through archaeology, he has shown us
that the country has real potential and really unique circumstances
that will help put it on the map certainly in archaeological terms.
That will have positive economic spinoff in terms of tourism.
There is a gentleman named Ruben, who runs the Organization for
the Preservation of Wildlife. He is working with the zoo and with
nature reserves. I am a birder - I like birding, so I like nature
and appreciate it when somebody tries to protect wetlands.
There are people like that here - in civil society, and some in
government as well - who share our values and are trying to make this
country a better place. Those are the people that inspire me to do
my job better, and to push the Embassy and push everybody here to
partner with these folks so that we the United States can be on the
side of those that are trying to make this a better country. Those
people affect our policy because what we do everyday is to build
partnerships and try to identify those partners who share our values
and are pushing Armenia in the right direction.
The Politic: This past May, the U.S. Embassy in Armenia collaborated
on a photo exhibition depicting the U.S.-led humanitarian relief
effort for children orphaned after the mass killings of Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. What was the Embassy's motivation
for sponsoring this project, and how did the project fit into the
Embassy's broader goals?
It was a wonderful project, and the photos are still being shown in
a couple of places. It started with a joint project we did on Clara
Barton, who started the American Red Cross. You may not have known that
at the age of 74, in 1896, she hopped on a boat and came to Istanbul to
help rescue Armenians during difficult times in that earlier part of
the Ottoman Empire as well. We did a joint project with the Genocide
Museum and Memorial here on her contribution to helping the Armenians
during this difficult time. That actually was the first part of it.
As we got to thinking, the Near East Relief did this work on a more
massive scale, from 1915 to 1923 or so, and basically saved a whole
generation of Armenians who were under threat at the time. We see this
as a really compelling U.S.-Armenia story, not bashing anybody. There
were some government-funded [Americans], but what I love is that
this is a story about private organizations and private Americans who
very early on, before humanitarian operations and human rights were
even foreign policy goals of the United States, [launched the first]
international humanitarian operation by the United States on global
human rights issues of this period.
What I like about it is that it is a people-to-people story. It is
a story about how the American people came together when they saw
a people in need and did something about it. That is why it is a
compelling story. Obviously, there are horrors attached to it, and
politics can be brought into it, but we co-sponsored it with Near
East Relief and Naregatsi Institute because it is such a compelling
people-to-people story.
The Politic: According to a letter shared by the Armenian Reporter,
during the presidential election in 2008, Barack Obama had promised to
recognize the 1915 killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a
"genocide." To date, he has not officially adopted this word. Why is
there so much controversy surrounding the terminology? What are your
thoughts on whether you expect the U.S.'s rhetoric to change during
the Obama administration?
I work for President Obama as President, not as a candidate, so
I will not speak to his views as a candidate; I will speak to his
views as President. As a public servant, I enforce and implement his
[policies]. The U.S. policy on this question comes out every April 24,
which is Armenian Remembrance Day, the day that Armenians commemorate
when the atrocities began in 1915. And the President's statement
on April 24 - he has made about four or five - is a very strong
statement. It does not deny any of the facts. It clearly states that
1.5 million Armenians were massacred or were marshaled to death in
the final days of the Ottoman Empire. It refers to these actions as
one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. It acknowledges the
facts, and in our view, there is no dispute over the facts.
The policy decision about how the U.S. government characterizes this
period is a policy decision, and it takes into account a number of
legal and political factors, one of which is reconciliation. Our U.S.
policy is to find ways to promote reconciliation between Turkey
and Armenia and, through that reconciliation, to improve the lives
of people in both countries. Certainly, Armenia needs that Turkish
border open, needs diplomatic relations with its neighbor. It is in a
semi-isolated state [that] is very detrimental to the state and to the
economy. So U.S. policy is reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
The President and Secretary of State - Secretaries Clinton and now
Kerry - select and use words that they believe will promote that
reconciliation, and that is why they have chosen the words they used.
The Politic: How do you feel that America is represented abroad,
and are there any elements of American foreign policy that you would
like to change?
Every embassy in the world is represented by patriotic and committed
Americans from many different agencies. It is not just the State
Department of course. The Defense Department, U.S.A.I.D., Agriculture
- all sorts of folks are represented in U.S. embassies. I believe
my experience in thirty years in the Foreign Service is that we
collectively do a good job representing American interests, American
values, and American people overseas. We do our best in sometimes
very difficult circumstances to promote U.S. interests in term
trade and investment, but also U.S. values in partnership, to help
these other countries to succeed. We want countries to succeed; we
don't want countries to fail. That is why we are constantly pushing
for partnerships, pushing for trade and investment, to help develop
mutually-beneficial economic relationships and political and diplomatic
relationships with every country in the world.
Every country has got differences, but certainly in every country
where I have worked, our focus has been to find ways to deepen
the relationship and help those countries to succeed, which helps
us to succeed. I think we have done a good job of it. Obviously,
there are horror stories. All over the place, things haven't gone
right. Bad things happen, and certainly mistakes have been made all
over the world in every administration. I'm not suggesting that the
State Department is perfect, but what I can say is in my thirty years
in the Foreign Service, I have uniformly found my colleagues to be
patriotic and dedicated and committed Americans trying to do what's
best for the United States. Usually, what that means is helping the
country succeed where we work.
The Politic: Thank you for your answers, sir, and for taking the time.
I have got one last thing [to say], if I could just stay on for another
minute or two. I can't resist the opportunity of talking to a fine
U.S. institution with presumably a lot of young people eager to learn
about the Foreign Service. If I could, let me just state a little bit
more about my experience in the Foreign Service and encourage your
readers to consider it as well. It is a career that I have always
wanted, since age 12. I have been doing it for thirty years and would
not want to do anything else. I have found that, for men and women
both, the career is hugely satisfying for a couple of reasons.
One, a lot of people have the 'international itch' - you want to do
something international - but there are a lot of ways you can scratch
your international itch. What I like about the Foreign Service is that
it is a service-oriented organization. The Foreign Service tries to
help and serve causes that are bigger than [itself], and I find that
satisfying. I find my colleagues find that satisfying as well.
Personally, I like the fact that I am able to do my international
business and pursue my international career with my family overseas
with me. It is not like many business kinds of positions in which
you do a lot of travel and your family stays in St. Louis, or New
York, or wherever, and you go travel by yourself. The beauty of the
Foreign Service is that, when you travel in most posts, your family
is traveling with you. You get the benefit of both the stability and
the love of family along with the excitement and the challenges of
an international career.
My final point is that, on a personal level, I have a short attention
span, and I like the fact that I change jobs every two or three years.
I like the fact that I have a new boss, and a new country, and a new
language, and a new environment, and new challenges. I wouldn't want
to be in a position where I was doing more or less the same thing for
my whole career. So for a lot of reasons, I have found this a hugely
satisfying career.
The State Department has made a very conscious effort over the years
to diversify not only racially and ethnically and gender-wise, but also
geographically. We are recruiting Americans from all over the country,
and we are recruiting Americans from all different specialties -
even science and technology. We desperately need scientists and
technicians in the Foreign Service, not just political science people
like myself. I would urge any of your readers who are thinking about
a Foreign Service career: go ahead and take the test.
Who knows? You might pass, you might fail, but take the test. Explore
a little bit to check it out. I think a lot of your readers will find
that it is a good career.
http://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-john-a-heffern-u-s-ambassador-to-armenia/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
The Politic, The Yale Undergraduate Journal of Politics
Aug 13 2013
To learn more about the U.S. Embassy to Armenia, visit
http://armenia.usembassy.gov
By Rachel OConnell
John A. Heffern assumed his post as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia in
October 2011. A career member of the Foreign Service since 1982,
Heffern has previously been posted in Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia;
Ivory Coast; and China. He worked in Washington, D.C. as Executive
Assistant to Under Secretary for Political Affairs and as Deputy Chief
of Mission (DCM) at US NATO, in Brussels, Belgium. A native of St.
Louis, Missouri, Heffern earned his Bachelor of Arts from Michigan
State University.
The Politic: Why did you join the Foreign Service?
It is what I wanted to do since about age 12. My mother is from India.
She had British [family], since the colonial times. My father went to
India in World War II from Saint Louis, our hometown. They got married
in India. Then, they went to China together (still in World War II).
Then, they came back to St. Louis, and I was raised on stories about
their time in China and India. So I decided that that's what I wanted
to do. By age 12, I wanted to be the first U.S. Ambassador to China.
At the time, of course, we didn't have diplomatic relations with
China. Basically, my family history is what got me interested.
The Politic: You yourself are a father - you have five children. What
are the upsides and downsides of trying to raise so many kids while
moving around constantly and living abroad?
Well, there are indeed downsides and upsides, but by far, from
our family's experience, the upsides outweigh the downsides. Our
five children are now all adults and all of them in one way or
another have continued a bit of an international focus even when
they were free to make their own decisions. That means to my wife
Libby and me that we didn't ruin their lives by dragging them around
the world. We did indeed spend a lot of time overseas. We had five
or six assignment in East Asia, one in assignment in Africa, and a
couple now here in Europe. The fact that they continued - through
Peace Corps, or National Geographic, or other ways - [to have] this
kind of international focus in their careers convinced us that they
have benefited from the overseas experience.
The movement is hard, of course. They are constantly changing
friends, losing friends, moving from places they like. They liked
everywhere we lived, so that part has been good. I think it is good
having the kids close together. They are all about 18 months apart -
good Catholic family planning. They had each other, so as soon as
we got to a place, they would have somebody more or less their own
age to be on the school bus with and to sit at the lunch table with
when they arrived in a new spot. So they never felt totally alone,
the way that can happen in some families with a single child or with
a big age difference between the kids.
There was a lot of disruption. There was the pain of packing and
unpacking (and goodness knows that is a pain) and the government has
all these rules and restrictions, which were difficult. So there
is a lot of personal difficulty, but the fact is they enjoyed it,
my wife has enjoyed it, and they continued international [focuses]
one way or the other afterwards, and that is a good thing.
The Politic: Is there one experience, event or person in your host
country that has greatly influenced one or more of your policies? How
so?
What we are trying to do in Armenia - it is a country in transition,
with all sorts of challenges but all sorts of opportunities as well
- is to focus on partnerships with people who share our values and
are trying to push Armenia in the right direction and make this a
better country for everybody. There are many people here who fit that
category, many who get me excited to come to work every day, because I
know that - with a little bit of attention from the U.S. Embassy, the
U.S. government, and me personally and my wife, and with occasionally
some resources - we can really help push this country in the right
direction. [I deal] with NGOs here, and the press.
A gentleman I just spent time with on a recent trip - he was the
head of the Archaeological Institute, named Boris - has been very
inspirational for us. He has shown us that Armenia has a three, four,
five, six thousand year history. Through archaeology, he has shown us
that the country has real potential and really unique circumstances
that will help put it on the map certainly in archaeological terms.
That will have positive economic spinoff in terms of tourism.
There is a gentleman named Ruben, who runs the Organization for
the Preservation of Wildlife. He is working with the zoo and with
nature reserves. I am a birder - I like birding, so I like nature
and appreciate it when somebody tries to protect wetlands.
There are people like that here - in civil society, and some in
government as well - who share our values and are trying to make this
country a better place. Those are the people that inspire me to do
my job better, and to push the Embassy and push everybody here to
partner with these folks so that we the United States can be on the
side of those that are trying to make this a better country. Those
people affect our policy because what we do everyday is to build
partnerships and try to identify those partners who share our values
and are pushing Armenia in the right direction.
The Politic: This past May, the U.S. Embassy in Armenia collaborated
on a photo exhibition depicting the U.S.-led humanitarian relief
effort for children orphaned after the mass killings of Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. What was the Embassy's motivation
for sponsoring this project, and how did the project fit into the
Embassy's broader goals?
It was a wonderful project, and the photos are still being shown in
a couple of places. It started with a joint project we did on Clara
Barton, who started the American Red Cross. You may not have known that
at the age of 74, in 1896, she hopped on a boat and came to Istanbul to
help rescue Armenians during difficult times in that earlier part of
the Ottoman Empire as well. We did a joint project with the Genocide
Museum and Memorial here on her contribution to helping the Armenians
during this difficult time. That actually was the first part of it.
As we got to thinking, the Near East Relief did this work on a more
massive scale, from 1915 to 1923 or so, and basically saved a whole
generation of Armenians who were under threat at the time. We see this
as a really compelling U.S.-Armenia story, not bashing anybody. There
were some government-funded [Americans], but what I love is that
this is a story about private organizations and private Americans who
very early on, before humanitarian operations and human rights were
even foreign policy goals of the United States, [launched the first]
international humanitarian operation by the United States on global
human rights issues of this period.
What I like about it is that it is a people-to-people story. It is
a story about how the American people came together when they saw
a people in need and did something about it. That is why it is a
compelling story. Obviously, there are horrors attached to it, and
politics can be brought into it, but we co-sponsored it with Near
East Relief and Naregatsi Institute because it is such a compelling
people-to-people story.
The Politic: According to a letter shared by the Armenian Reporter,
during the presidential election in 2008, Barack Obama had promised to
recognize the 1915 killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a
"genocide." To date, he has not officially adopted this word. Why is
there so much controversy surrounding the terminology? What are your
thoughts on whether you expect the U.S.'s rhetoric to change during
the Obama administration?
I work for President Obama as President, not as a candidate, so
I will not speak to his views as a candidate; I will speak to his
views as President. As a public servant, I enforce and implement his
[policies]. The U.S. policy on this question comes out every April 24,
which is Armenian Remembrance Day, the day that Armenians commemorate
when the atrocities began in 1915. And the President's statement
on April 24 - he has made about four or five - is a very strong
statement. It does not deny any of the facts. It clearly states that
1.5 million Armenians were massacred or were marshaled to death in
the final days of the Ottoman Empire. It refers to these actions as
one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. It acknowledges the
facts, and in our view, there is no dispute over the facts.
The policy decision about how the U.S. government characterizes this
period is a policy decision, and it takes into account a number of
legal and political factors, one of which is reconciliation. Our U.S.
policy is to find ways to promote reconciliation between Turkey
and Armenia and, through that reconciliation, to improve the lives
of people in both countries. Certainly, Armenia needs that Turkish
border open, needs diplomatic relations with its neighbor. It is in a
semi-isolated state [that] is very detrimental to the state and to the
economy. So U.S. policy is reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
The President and Secretary of State - Secretaries Clinton and now
Kerry - select and use words that they believe will promote that
reconciliation, and that is why they have chosen the words they used.
The Politic: How do you feel that America is represented abroad,
and are there any elements of American foreign policy that you would
like to change?
Every embassy in the world is represented by patriotic and committed
Americans from many different agencies. It is not just the State
Department of course. The Defense Department, U.S.A.I.D., Agriculture
- all sorts of folks are represented in U.S. embassies. I believe
my experience in thirty years in the Foreign Service is that we
collectively do a good job representing American interests, American
values, and American people overseas. We do our best in sometimes
very difficult circumstances to promote U.S. interests in term
trade and investment, but also U.S. values in partnership, to help
these other countries to succeed. We want countries to succeed; we
don't want countries to fail. That is why we are constantly pushing
for partnerships, pushing for trade and investment, to help develop
mutually-beneficial economic relationships and political and diplomatic
relationships with every country in the world.
Every country has got differences, but certainly in every country
where I have worked, our focus has been to find ways to deepen
the relationship and help those countries to succeed, which helps
us to succeed. I think we have done a good job of it. Obviously,
there are horror stories. All over the place, things haven't gone
right. Bad things happen, and certainly mistakes have been made all
over the world in every administration. I'm not suggesting that the
State Department is perfect, but what I can say is in my thirty years
in the Foreign Service, I have uniformly found my colleagues to be
patriotic and dedicated and committed Americans trying to do what's
best for the United States. Usually, what that means is helping the
country succeed where we work.
The Politic: Thank you for your answers, sir, and for taking the time.
I have got one last thing [to say], if I could just stay on for another
minute or two. I can't resist the opportunity of talking to a fine
U.S. institution with presumably a lot of young people eager to learn
about the Foreign Service. If I could, let me just state a little bit
more about my experience in the Foreign Service and encourage your
readers to consider it as well. It is a career that I have always
wanted, since age 12. I have been doing it for thirty years and would
not want to do anything else. I have found that, for men and women
both, the career is hugely satisfying for a couple of reasons.
One, a lot of people have the 'international itch' - you want to do
something international - but there are a lot of ways you can scratch
your international itch. What I like about the Foreign Service is that
it is a service-oriented organization. The Foreign Service tries to
help and serve causes that are bigger than [itself], and I find that
satisfying. I find my colleagues find that satisfying as well.
Personally, I like the fact that I am able to do my international
business and pursue my international career with my family overseas
with me. It is not like many business kinds of positions in which
you do a lot of travel and your family stays in St. Louis, or New
York, or wherever, and you go travel by yourself. The beauty of the
Foreign Service is that, when you travel in most posts, your family
is traveling with you. You get the benefit of both the stability and
the love of family along with the excitement and the challenges of
an international career.
My final point is that, on a personal level, I have a short attention
span, and I like the fact that I change jobs every two or three years.
I like the fact that I have a new boss, and a new country, and a new
language, and a new environment, and new challenges. I wouldn't want
to be in a position where I was doing more or less the same thing for
my whole career. So for a lot of reasons, I have found this a hugely
satisfying career.
The State Department has made a very conscious effort over the years
to diversify not only racially and ethnically and gender-wise, but also
geographically. We are recruiting Americans from all over the country,
and we are recruiting Americans from all different specialties -
even science and technology. We desperately need scientists and
technicians in the Foreign Service, not just political science people
like myself. I would urge any of your readers who are thinking about
a Foreign Service career: go ahead and take the test.
Who knows? You might pass, you might fail, but take the test. Explore
a little bit to check it out. I think a lot of your readers will find
that it is a good career.
http://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-john-a-heffern-u-s-ambassador-to-armenia/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress