The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project AMBASSADOR CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: January 23, 1990 Copyright 199 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Department of State Secretariat 1 51-1 54 Learning how foreign policy machinery worked NSC-State relationship Truman- Acheson Transition to Eisenhower administration McCarthyism John Foster Dulles New Delhi and Calcutta 1 54-1 58 ,nterest in ,ndia Political officer in Delhi and Calcutta Travel and reporting in ,ndia Concern a.out ,ndia/s drift to left Congress Party ,ndian officials 0isits to Dacca Consulate 1eneral relations with em.assy Pakistan 1 5 -1 21 3arachi and political reporting ,ndian and Pakistani biases in Foreign Service 4.S. interests in Pakistan SEATO Political situation in Pakistan Mohammed Ayu. 3han Strains on 4.S.-Pakistani relationship Move to Murree office to service Rawalpindi NATO Affairs 7RPM8 1 21-1 24 1uidance for political consultations in NATO 1 Relations with other bureaus in Department AN3ARA 1 25-1 28 Relations with 1reece- Cyprus NATO Dealing with Turks Turkish view of Soviets NEA 1 28-1 72 ,ndo-Pakistan conflict over East Pakistan Pu.lic opinion on side of ,ndians Nixon administration on Pakistani side Pakistani role in opening to China Attempting even-handed policy Lack of o.jectivity of 4.S. am.assadors on scene Bypassing am.assadors Role of 4.S. consulate general in Dacca Joseph Sisco and Parker Hart 3issinger and NSC Bangladesh as —international basket case“ Am.assador to Sri Lanka 1 72-1 72 How appointed 0iew of Bandaranaike government as unfriendly Few 4.S. interests, strategic or commercial Dealing with Mrs. Bandaranaike Official and private behavior of Sri Lankans Reaction to 4.S. departure from 0ietnam Opening to China Explaining Watergate Non-aligned movement and Sri Lanka Sri Lanka and ,ndia Also am.assador to Maldives Senior Seminar and ,nspection Corps 1 72-1 7 Foreign Service as a career Role of wife in Foreign Service career INTERVIEW $: Lets' start with your bac(ground. Where did you live in your youth and where did you get your education? 2 0AN HOLLENA , grew up in Baltimore, Md. My family had been in the State of Maryland for many years. , graduated from the 1ilman School in Baltimore and then, following my fatherBs foot-steps, , went to Haverford College outside of Philadelphia. My Haverford career was split. , was there for two years at the beginning of the 40s, then , went into the Navy from 1 43-42--, was an officer for part of that time--and afterward , returned to Haverford graduating in 1 47. Then , returned to Baltimore and entered John HopkinsB graduate school. , received a Ph.D. in Political Science in 1 51. A few days after , had finished my graduate program at Hopkins, , joined the Department of State, in June 1 51, in the Executive Secretariat. $: ,ow did you become interested in the Department o. State? 0AN HOLLENA When , was in graduate school, , had three things that , was interested inA one, teachingD the second, journalism and the third was the field of foreign affairs. As , went through graduate school, my interest in foreign affairs intensified and , decided to enter the Department of State. , was older than most of the others who were trying to enter the Department, because of the length of my academic studies. Therefore, , entered the Department rather than the Foreign Service and converted to the latter in 1 54, as part of the Wriston program. $: /ou were with the Secretariat from 1901102. What were you doing? 0AN HOLLENA , was basically doing support work for the Secretary of State and for the senior officers of the Department. ,t was one of the best jo.s that any person entering the Foreign Service could have had at that time because you got an extraordinary overview of the Department, even through you were young and very junior. Eou worked with some of the top people in the Department, not closely in every case, but in a staff support position. For example, , worked on a num.er of conferences or other activities involving Dean Acheson, who in my judgment, has been the outstanding Secretary of State of my lifetime. Within a few months of joining the Department, , was on foreign trips--to 1ermany, to 3orea, to the NATO Conference in Lis.on in Fe.ruary 1 52 7that was the meeting at which Turkey and 1reece joined NATO8. , was at an ideal vantage point from which to learn how the foreign policy machinery of our government worked. This was true both for the Department and other agencies because one was in close touch with Department of Defense and with the NSC--we worked very closely with the NSC staff. ,t was an ideal place to start a career. $: What was your impression o. the relationships between the Department o. State, the NSC and De.ense in the 1901102 period? 0AN HOLLENA As a general statement, , would say that the relationship between State, NSC and Defense was very good, certainly in the early period of my involvement in the Department of State. One of the reasons for that was the extraordinary relationship .etween President Harry Truman and Secretary Dean Acheson. There pro.a.ly could not 3 have been two more dissimilar individuals in terms of background or temperament, but they got along extremely well. One of the reasons was that Dean Acheson recogniFed the primacy of the Presidency. When Jimmy Byrnes was Secretary of State, he didnBt recogniFe that. He had hoped to become President himself. Acheson, on the other hand, was very careful during international conferences to either report by telegram or telephone to the President, so that there would be no surprises for Harry Truman on major issues. ,t was a very creative period of American diplomacy. ,t was a period when NATO was getting underwayD it was the period of the Truman DoctrineD it was one of the more exciting periods in American diplomacy. , feel very pleased and privileged to have joined the Department at that time. $: Were you there during the transition between the Truman Administration and the Eisenhower one? 0AN HOLLENA , was. There were some bumpy aspects to that period, particularly when John Foster Dulles, as the new Secretary in early 1 53, assem.led the State Department employees outside the building. ,t was a cold day. He made a statement to the effect that loyalty up begets loyalty down or something like that. The suggestion was that some of the DepartmentBs people might be less than loyal to the new Administration. , must also underscore the fact that this was the McCarthy era and there was tremendous suspicion of the Department of State in some Guarters--from Congress and from parts of the American pu.lic and press. Acheson, as Secretary of State, had borne the brunt of some of these attacks very effectively. When John Foster Dulles came in, there was a concern among a num.er of people in the Department, including myself, that Dulles Guestioned the loyalty of the people in the Department. Let me emphasiFe, however, that this was a transient period. By the end of 1 53, Dulles felt more secure in his position as Secretary and the .ureaucracy was more comforta.le in dealing with him. So after a rather rocky start, the relationship worked out reasona.ly well. $: /ou served in the Secretariat during the height o. the McCarthy period. How did you as a junior person feel about this period? 0AN HOLLENA ,t did not affect me personally, but it did have an impact. Some of the senior people , dealt with were particularly sensitive to being seen as HsoftH on Communism and related issues. This naturally affected people down the line in State as a spin-off effect. That was part of the atmosphere at the time. ,t tended to make it harder to de.ate issues within the Department than it might have otherwise been. $: /ou suggest that there may have been a certain amount o. posturing to appear ideologically sound. 0AN HOLLENA Ees, but that is not entirely uniGue. Top political leaders in 1overnment Departments in the 4nited States, whether State or Defense or elsewhere, are often adjusting to or reflecting domestic political pressures. That was certainly true in the early 50s. ,t became less so with the reduction of power of McCarthy, with the increasing self- 4 confidence of the Administration, and with the re-election of President Eisenhower in 1 52. But it was certainly part of the atmosphere from early 1 53 into 1 54. $: Did you feel that when Dulles came in, despite his pre6udices, surrounded as he was by pro.essionals, there was strong leadership? Did they (now where they wanted to go? 0AN HOLLENA Ees and no. Eou did have the professionals who were carried on into the Eisenhower-Dulles Administration. One felt comforta.le with them because one knew them. At the same time, John Foster Dulles had on his personal staff two people--John Hanes, who later became a good friend--and Roderic OBConnor, who died some years ago. These two came in with Dulles and worked in his outer office. They threw their weight around rather effectively in the first year. Again, it was part of a new Administration/s effort to put its own imprint on both policy and the modus operandi of the Department. Even though this does occur with every new Administration, , felt it perhaps more because , had not experienced any other transition period in my career. During su.seGuent transitions, , was sometimes overseas.