Eulogy for Thomas O. Enders

March 20, 1996

New York, NY

Last Saturday at a dinner with John Turner, former Finance Minister and Prime Minister of Canada, the conversation turned to Tom Enders. "Tom", said Turner, who is not given to superlatives, especially about Americans, "was the best Ambassador I have ever known. Not the best American; the best of any country anywhere." A few hours later Tom died.

I knew no better foreign service officer than Tom, few who were his equals. Personally I shall miss terribly his understated, unassuming, unfailing friendship.

The Foreign Service of the United States is an extraordinary institution. It represents a country without a tradition of foreign policy as other nations understand foreign policy. It serves a society oscillating between a craving for withdrawal and a yen for missionary conversion. It is periodically subordinated to political requirements of incumbents. Through it all, the Foreign Service is the repository of continuity, the vindicator of the permanent values and the conscience of the national interest of a society that too rarely appreciates it.

Tom represented the very acme of the Foreign Service. Brilliant, resilient, tough, uncomplaining, dedicated, patriotic, Tom was a pillar of strength for Secretaries of State and Presidents. He insisted on high standards, above all for himself, because he thought that his country mattered and was on the whole a force for good. And he expressed his convictions in his conduct, in his single-minded pursuit of his calling, not in rhetoric. Some have described Tom as a warrior. That was not the essence of the man. He was a knight as in the ancient chivalrous order gone forth to slay the dragons, to give hope to the weak and provide security for the just.

I met Tom in October 1972, as the war in Vietnam was drawing to a close, at a moment suspended between hope and premonition. The occasion was a visit to Phnom Penh to determine whether and above all how Cambodia could survive. Tom made a brilliant and incisive presentation which moved me because, transcending the slogans of that self-righteous period, it was permeated with a deep compassion and concern for the people who, in reliance on America's word, had thrown in their lot with us. He talked of reconstruction,

not arms; of civil society not civil war. Paradoxically,
the very precision of Tom's presentation conveyed a deep
commitment to a better world, and his extraordinary
analytical skill was in the service of a great passion.
Though he made not the slightest effort to ingratiate
himself, I decided then and there that I would need Tom as a
close advisor.

For some months he was obliged to stay in Phnom Penh which,
after the Paris Agreement, was on the front line and in the
vortex of a domestic controversy as well. Tom flinched from
neither--and the horrible genocide that followed the fall of
Phnom Penh in 1975 is the best testimony to what was at
stake and for what he committed himself.

After I became Secretary of State, I brought Tom to
Washington as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and
Business Affairs in the Ford Administration. There he was
again on the front line of a different kind of battle.

In the wake of Watergate, the October Mideast War and energy
shocks, a conflict was looming between a demoralized West
and a radicalized Third World. A strategy was needed-- of
which Tom became a principal architect--to bolster the
solidarity of the industrial democracies, to offer the
developing world a conciliatory message of cooperation, to
defuse radicalism, to isolate OPEC, to build and strengthen
institutions of global economic cooperation in the world
interest.

There were many forums where he acted indefatigably--the
International Energy Agency (IEA), which he helped bring
about; the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD);
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD); and Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly.
The issues, too, were many--the supply and price of energy
and other commodities; trade; development assistance;
financial flaws.

But transcending all this, under his leadership, the United
States, in the midst of Watergate and the energy crisis,
embarked on a typically American endeavor--to bring hope out
of despair, harmony out of chaos, conciliation out of
conflict.

Tom was a bulldog. There was an epic bureaucratic struggle
between the State Department and the Treasury Department
over what U.S. policy should be. Tom was my point man for
presenting to the world a humane and constructive vision of
the future. How many times did Bill Simon call me outraged

at the insistent behavior of my Assistant Secretary in the
interagency process that was formulating U.S. policy. I
promised to rein Tom in--and then called Tom to tell him
what a great job he was doing!

A tower of integrity and courage, a fount of sage advice and
judgment, Tom was the best of America--confident and decent,
a champion of humane values, strong and principled. Tom
fought for his principles but never for his career. He was
as loyal as he was brilliant. He would defend his views
vehemently, but when a decision was made he would execute it
with ability and total discretion. His mission was to help
America to live up to its promise.

A powerful man, Tom was touchingly gentle. A seemingly
assertive personality, Tom was also strangely shy. I never
succeeded in getting him to call me anything but Mr.
Secretary, and yet I knew that I had in him a caring,
trusting, reliable friend who would always be there when
needed and yet would never obtrude himself.

Nancy and I had dinner with him at the end of January.
Ravaged, he still would not talk of his illness. What
concerned him that evening was the future of America's
relations with the Western Hemisphere. A few weeks later he
called me while I was on vacation in Mexico. He was
reconsidering a point he had argued, he said. He had not
yet made up his mind about the alternative but he wanted me
to know his thinking, so that I would not be unduly
influenced by views which he was no longer sure he held.

Nancy and I have a short list of people with whom we have
promised ourselves we would see more as we get older and
time becomes more precious. Tom was high on the list. It
was not to be. Nancy and I will never forget our friend who
left us so much too soon and who enhanced our lives whenever
he touched them. And still in our grief we consider
ourselves fortunate that our lives were permitted to
intersect his.

3

4/1/96

Last Saturday at a dinner with John Turner, former Finance Minister and Prime Minister of Canada, the conversation turned to Tom Enders. "Tom", said Turner, who is not given to superlatives, especially towards Americans, "was the best Ambassador I have ever known. Not the best American; the best of any country anywhere." A few hours later Tom died.

I knew no better foreign service officer than Tom, few who were his equals. ~~The public service will miss him.~~

Tom represented the very acme of the Foreign Service.
Brilliant, resilient, tough, uncomplaining, dedicated,
patriotic, Tom was a pillar of strength for Secretaries of
State and Presidents. He insisted on high standards, above
all for himself, because he thought that his country
mattered and was on the whole a force for good. And he
expressed his convictions in his conduct, in his single-
minded pursuit of his calling, not in rhetoric. Some
obituaries have described Tom as a warrior. That was not
the essence of the man. He was a knight as in the ancient

There were many forums where he acted indefatigably--
the International Energy Agency (IEA), which he helped bring
about; the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD);
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD); and Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly.
The issues, too, were many--the supply and price of energy
and other commodities; trade; development assistance;
financial flaws.

But transcending all this under his leadership the United States, in the
midst of Watergate and the energy crisis, embarked on a

Tom was a bulldog. There was an epic bureaucratic
struggle between the State Department and the Treasury
Department over what U.S. policy should be. Tom was my
point man for presenting to the world a humane and
constructive vision of the future. How many times did Bill
~~Simon call me in a rage~~ at the insistent behavior of my
Assistant Secretary in the interagency process that was
formulating U.S. policy. I promised to rein Tom in--and
then called Tom to tell him what a great job he was doing!

6