Speaker Disinvited for NATO Celebration Shouldn’t Have Planned to Criticize Trump – Daily Signal

I recently came across Stanley Sloans Dec. 7 Facebook post, in which he let his friends and followers know that his planned address for the Dec. 10 celebration of NATOs 70thanniversary was abruptly canceled by the Danish Atlantic Council.

The cancellation was due to the decision by the U.S. Embassy inCopenhagen not to support Sloans participation. The chief reason for that,spurred by U.S. Ambassador Carla Sands, was his strong criticism of PresidentDonald Trump.

On Facebook, Sloan posted what was to have been his entirekeynote speech, Crisis in Transatlantic Relations: What Future Will WeChoose? He had been scheduled to speak after Sands, but because he was droppedfrom the program, Lars Bangert Struwe, the head of the Danish Atlantic Council,had little choice but to cancel the entire event.

With all due respect for Sloans 50 years of expertise andexperience as a top expert on U.S.-European relations and as a visiting scholarat Vermonts Middlebury College, nonresident senior fellow at the ScowcroftCenter of the Atlantic Council of the United States, and associate fellow atthe Austrian Institute for European Security Policy with expertise in nationaldefense and NATO, he surely must have known that the harshly critical tone ofhis speech would not be greenlit by any ambassador representing the presidentof the United States.

But he likely took the risk because, as he asserted, he hadearned the right to use the platform to sound the alarm with your critique.

When I travel abroad and deliver keynote addresses with heads ofstates, ambassadors, and other dignitaries present, I dont levy suchcritiques. Thats the case even if I have fundamental concerns or disagreementson behalf of my country over issues, or even when I disagree with a policywhile visiting a country.

Thats not to say constructive criticism shouldnt occur, or that questions about a process, protocol, or procedure shouldnt be raised. But surely Sloan understands that the authorized representative of the president would respond to a critique like his as she did.

I saw Sloans tweet in which he stated that he wasoverwhelmed by the supporthe has been receiving after his participation in the celebration of NATOs 70thanniversary was vetoed by the ambassador to Denmark.

While Sloan no doubt has a lot of support for his views, it is my experience working with embassies around the world that otherwise support free speech that no speaker would be allowed to take the stage, after the U.S. ambassador speaks, to harshly criticize a sitting U.S. president, regardless of political party.

That speech, in that forum, would not have been permitted under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan. I can say that without fear of contradiction, because, with the exception of Reagan, I have met all of these presidents, spent time with them in various capacities, and worked on behalf of two administrations to promote public diplomacy throughout the world.

NATOs many challengesfrom Brexit to Turkey purchasing a missile defense system from Russianeed to be illuminated coherently and not through the prism of opposition to the president.

With his intellect and experience, Sloan could have discussed these and other issues without ascribing a possible failure of NATO to the U.S. president. NATOs challenges, which have indeed expanded beyond its original founding mission of 70 years ago to fight Soviet aggression, are undeniably real. As such, Sloanhad the opportunity for a robust critique that could strike a chord of unity and solutions for the alliance you are clearly passionate about.

The important issue of collective defense under NATOs Article 5and concerns over Russias continued dangerous moves (which Sloan did mentionin his speech), the growing Chinese threat, and other challenges facing thenon-free world cant be reiterated enough.

I concur with Sloanwith his view, stated in his2018 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,that the [NATO] alliance remains so important to American society. NATO is indeed necessary, as are newer strategic concepts of collective security in which preserving freedom, democracy, and civility are paramount.

But as I noted before, keynote addresses or even main talkingpoints are submitted in advance of a speech such as the one in question, anddiscussions are had with the host or hosts on the focus of the speech. Suchpreparation might include feedback prior to the actual speech and might wellinclude proscribingor editing out parts ofa presentation.

The last-minute nature of the invitation to Sloan didnt allowfor the latter and consequently set up a tenuous moment that causedembarrassment for Denmarks Atlantic Council, the U.S. Embassy in Denmark, and,yes, Sloan himself.

Sloan undeniably has freedom of speech. However, understanding the nature of his platform was imperative, and the privilege he had was sacrificed because of what he was going to present, given the event sponsor, the U.S. Embassy in Denmark. As a fellow professional, I believe Sloans message could have been presented differently and still have had tremendous outcomes.

Read the original here:
Speaker Disinvited for NATO Celebration Shouldn't Have Planned to Criticize Trump - Daily Signal