,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/15 For the non-historians out there: How should we understand Rudulph Giuliani and his role in the Ukraine scandal from a historian’s perspective? When historians write about an topic (like corruption) or a bilateral relationship, we often assemble a map of important actors.
2/15 Some are governmental – bureaucracies, officials, politicians, etc. Others may be corporations invested in Ukraine or non-governmental orgs, such as civil society groups. Still others may be more insidious – transnational gangs or paramilitary networks.
3/15 Giuliani is an individual, but more an emmisary of the President. Trump is not the first president to use a private individual as an emissary on his behalf. But he may be the first in recent history to use someone outside of the normal policy process in this way.
4/15 President’s may send private citizens with specific expertise to conduct negotiations, or to intervene in a crisis. Think Jimmy Carter working to negotiate the release of hostages.
5/15 When this happens, there is a policy process. Agencies and officials will discuss in advance, and in detail, what that person’s role should be, what they can say on behalf of the US government, what their latitude is, etc. These are folks working within the policy process.
6/15 By all accounts, Giuliani was working outside the normal policy process, though he claims to have had State Department/Trump's blessing. Why do we know this? Because of reporting that describes how disruptive foreign policy and national security officials considered him.
7/15 When historians see something like this in the archives, we can ask all sorts of questions. Where does this person’s ‘power’ come from? How do officials on the ground in a place like Ukraine, or elsewhere ‘see’ him? Normally there will be documentary trail to follow.
8/15 Sometimes a person like Giuliani running around meeting with Ukranian officials, for example, is a sign of an individual freelancing, sometimes it’s a tip off that there are warring bureaucratic factions back home pursuing contradictory policy goals.
9/15 A local embassy will often report on the visit of someone like that, esp. someone like Giuliani throwing his weight around, disrupting existing policy and relationships. This ‘friction’ often leave traces in the archives that historian, or Congress can follow.
10/15 Giuliani claims he was acting on behalf of State Department. If so, there are records of this, and they would implicate Pompeo and many other State Dept. officials. There will also be a ‘parallel’ record of existing US policy toward Ukraine that we can compare Giuliani to.
11/15 Some analysts have suggested Iran-Contra is a useful, but imperfect analogy for understanding what Giuliani was doing. Iran-Contra was a classic conspiracy: agents within (and some outside of) the state pursuing a secret policy contravening existing law and policy.
12/15 In the Iran Contra scandal we had 'rogue' State Department and NSC officials like Oliver North working with private groups to illegally raise money for and funnel aid to the Contras, in violation of Congressional ban on such aid: nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…
13/15 When we see someone like Giuliani w/ no formal policymaking authority, acting as a representative of the President, carrying out a policy goal that is normally someone else’s job (like a DOJ or State Dept official working on corruption) it usually means one of two things:
14/15 The President is warring against his own bureaucracy, or carrying out actions that would never make it through normal policy channels because they are illegal or bureaucratically indefensible. In Giuliani’s case it seems to be a bit of both.
15/15 The important thing, from a historians perspective, and from a Congressional investigator's perspective, is that there will be records all over the State Department, NSC, and elsewhere that record other officials saying exactly what they think about Giuliani and his role.
