This illustrative piece from the Seattle Times was sent out by AFSA, our employee organization. I wonder how many people outside the Foreign Service got the correct answer.
Sizing up U.S. diplomacy
How many diplomats does the U.S. government have in active service?
Throughout the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, President-elect Obama talked forcefully about the need to repair frayed relations with allies. To make it all happen, the new administration must rely on its diplomats. How many diplomats does the U.S. government have in active service?
A. 57,000
B. 12,000
C. 6,400
D. 4,700
How many diplomats does the U.S. government have in active service?
A. 57,000 is not correct.
The State Department employs roughly 57,000 people. However, 31,000 are foreign nationals working overseas as support staff in U.S. embassies and consulates. The United States maintains diplomatic relations with nearly 180 of 191 countries, as well as with several international organizations. Altogether, the State Department maintains nearly 265 diplomatic and consular posts.
B. 12,000 is not correct.
The State Department employs approximately 12,000 Foreign Service personnel. This number includes foreign-service officers as well as support staff and diplomatic security agents, a significant number of whom are stationed in the United States. Throughout much of the 1990s, overseas diplomatic staffing was significantly reduced, as the United States cashed in on the "peace dividend" brought about by the end of the Cold War. Although this trend began to reverse itself by 1997, the American Academy of Diplomacy estimates that the State Department faces a personnel shortfall of more than 2,000 staff-years relating to enduring core diplomatic work, emerging policy challenges and critical training needs.
C. 6,400 is correct.
Among all State Department employees, 6,400 — or 11 percent — are diplomats, meaning they are engaged in government-to-government diplomacy and represent U.S. interests and advocate U.S. policy positions abroad.
Coincidentally, this number is roughly equal to the personnel stationed aboard a typical U.S. aircraft-carrier battle group, such as the USS Enterprise.
D. 4,700 is not correct.
The American Academy of Diplomacy estimates that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development will need to increase their ranks by 4,700 employees between 2010 and 2014 in order to carry out U.S. diplomatic initiatives successfully. For instance, the public diplomacy staff, which seeks to influence foreign publics by promoting U.S. policies, culture, society and values, is 24 percent smaller than in 1986.
And speaking of increasing the size of the Foreign Service, here is a comment from the blog Enough:
A good article in the January/February edition of Foreign Affairs by former President of the American Foreign Service Association J. Anthony Holmes advocates dramatically increasing the number of Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). Holmes offers some powerful statistics:
The number of lawyers at the Defense Department is larger than the entire U.S. diplomatic corps, there are more musicians in the military bands than there are U.S. diplomats, and the Defense Department’s 2008 budget was over 24 times as large as the combined budgets of the State Department and USAID ($750 billion compared with $31 billion).
Enough made similar calls for reform in a recent report, which noted that that in order to more effectively prevent conflict and mass atrocities, the U.S. Government must address the critical “mismatch between resources and requirements” at the State Department - sentiments which were echoed by former U.S. Ambassador for counter-narcotics in Afghanistan Thomas Schweich in the Washington Post.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
DSJ's Cautionary Tale
Disaffected Scanner Jockey, a former diplomatic spouse, offers a "Cautionary Tale" about being a "trailing spouse." It should be required reading for anyone considering joining the Foreign Service and their spouses.
A Cautionary Tale
[...]
The Foreign Service doesn’t create new problems. It takes the flaws and marital issues you already have and blows them wide open. I believe my divorce would have happened with or without the added stress of living overseas. It just happened a whole lot quicker than it would have back home. This is actually a very lucky thing, as both of us were young enough to pick up and start over.
The couples I see with the most success are the ones with an escape clause. Before they even fill out their first form, they sit down and say, “We’ll give it a fair shot for two years, if either of us is unhappy we’ll go home.” Truth is, life as an FS spouse can be stifling. There aren’t a whole lot of outlets or opportunities, just the endless rounds of Embassy life. So don’t enter into a Foreign Service marriage unless you’ve got a commitment that you can go home if you aren't happy.
And, yes, being a Foreign Service spouse can be intellecually and emotionally stifling. Your sense of self is under near-constant attack.
[...]
And, once you get on that plane, your career is over. Some people enjoy the Embassy hobby-jobs set aside for them, some enjoy the extra family time, some work a miracle and get a job with an overseas corporation. The people who do maintain their careers will blather about how you have to be up to the challenge, flexible and so on. (These people are even more annoying than they sound.) But, really, you’re never going to get to the corner office. A few weeks ago, I calculated that my Foreign Service sojourn probably cost me at least $50,000 lost income potential. Money well spent, but it takes a long time to dig out of a career hiatus.
You can read the entire post here. I recommend it.
She couldn't be more right. I am in the service because it is so hard to be a trailing spouse. The situation is even harder for a "member of household," since because we aren't "eligible family members," we generally don't get even the paultry jobs (DSJ calls them "hobby-jobs") offered to spouses. The simple fact for an FS spouse is that unless you want to be a stay at home mom or dad, your chances for personal fullfillment are slim. (Even internet businesses are seldom a possibility because you can't use the APO for shipping or receiving and overseas shipping is impossibly expensive.)
So, as those of you who have been reading this for a while know, I quit archaeology, a career I loved, rather than face either a career apart or no career at all. I have mixed feelings about the choice, though I think it was ultimately for the best. But not everyone can or should make that choice. Some people can be perfectly happy with the life of a "trailing spouse." And not being able to is not, as DSJ says, a personality flaw. People should have reasonable expectations of what they will face in the foreign service and the what the choices are they will have to make.
A Cautionary Tale
[...]
The Foreign Service doesn’t create new problems. It takes the flaws and marital issues you already have and blows them wide open. I believe my divorce would have happened with or without the added stress of living overseas. It just happened a whole lot quicker than it would have back home. This is actually a very lucky thing, as both of us were young enough to pick up and start over.
The couples I see with the most success are the ones with an escape clause. Before they even fill out their first form, they sit down and say, “We’ll give it a fair shot for two years, if either of us is unhappy we’ll go home.” Truth is, life as an FS spouse can be stifling. There aren’t a whole lot of outlets or opportunities, just the endless rounds of Embassy life. So don’t enter into a Foreign Service marriage unless you’ve got a commitment that you can go home if you aren't happy.
And, yes, being a Foreign Service spouse can be intellecually and emotionally stifling. Your sense of self is under near-constant attack.
[...]
And, once you get on that plane, your career is over. Some people enjoy the Embassy hobby-jobs set aside for them, some enjoy the extra family time, some work a miracle and get a job with an overseas corporation. The people who do maintain their careers will blather about how you have to be up to the challenge, flexible and so on. (These people are even more annoying than they sound.) But, really, you’re never going to get to the corner office. A few weeks ago, I calculated that my Foreign Service sojourn probably cost me at least $50,000 lost income potential. Money well spent, but it takes a long time to dig out of a career hiatus.
You can read the entire post here. I recommend it.
She couldn't be more right. I am in the service because it is so hard to be a trailing spouse. The situation is even harder for a "member of household," since because we aren't "eligible family members," we generally don't get even the paultry jobs (DSJ calls them "hobby-jobs") offered to spouses. The simple fact for an FS spouse is that unless you want to be a stay at home mom or dad, your chances for personal fullfillment are slim. (Even internet businesses are seldom a possibility because you can't use the APO for shipping or receiving and overseas shipping is impossibly expensive.)
So, as those of you who have been reading this for a while know, I quit archaeology, a career I loved, rather than face either a career apart or no career at all. I have mixed feelings about the choice, though I think it was ultimately for the best. But not everyone can or should make that choice. Some people can be perfectly happy with the life of a "trailing spouse." And not being able to is not, as DSJ says, a personality flaw. People should have reasonable expectations of what they will face in the foreign service and the what the choices are they will have to make.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
NYT: Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.
I know I said I was taking a hiatus for the holidays, but I wanted to make sure you saw this piece in yesterday's New York Times online. Besides, my vacation spot has wireless this time!
Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.
WASHINGTON — Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis.
Mrs. Clinton is recruiting Jacob J. Lew, the budget director under President Bill Clinton, as one of two deputies, according to people close to the Obama transition team. Mr. Lew’s focus, they said, will be on increasing the share of financing that goes to the diplomatic corps. He and James B. Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, are to be Mrs. Clinton’s chief lieutenants.
Nominations of deputy secretaries, like Mrs. Clinton’s, would be subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The incoming administration is also likely to name several envoys, officials said, reviving a practice of the Clinton administration, when Richard C. Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and other diplomats played a central role in mediating disputes in the Balkans and the Middle East.
As Mrs. Clinton puts together her senior team, officials said, she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs, where the Treasury has dominated during the Bush years. She has sought advice from Laura D’Andrea Tyson, an economist who headed Mr. Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
The steps seem intended to strengthen the role of diplomacy after a long stretch, particularly under Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in which the Pentagon, the vice president’s office and even the intelligence agencies held considerable sway over American foreign policy.
[...]
The recruitment of Mr. Lew — for a position that was not filled in the Bush administration — suggests that Mrs. Clinton is determined to win a larger share of financial resources for the department. A well-connected figure who was once an aide to Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Mr. Lew now works for Citigroup in a unit that oversees hedge funds.
“If we’re going to re-establish diplomacy as the critical tool in America’s arsenal,” a senior transition official said, “you need someone who can work both the budget and management side. He has very strong relations on the Hill; he knows the inner workings of how to manage a big enterprise.”
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, said Mrs. Clinton was being supported in her push for more resources by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Obama’s incoming national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones Jr.
For years, some Pentagon officials have complained that jobs like the economic reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the military’s burden when they could have been handled by a robust Foreign Service.
“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”
Mrs. Clinton’s push for a more vigorous economic team, one of her advisers said, stems from her conviction that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis. Economic issues also underpin some of the most important diplomatic relationships, notably with China.
In recent years, the Treasury Department, led by Henry M. Paulson Jr., has dominated policy toward China. Mr. Paulson leads a “strategic economic dialogue” with China that involves several agencies. It is not yet clear who will pick up that role in the Obama administration, although Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is frequently mentioned as a possibility.
Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.
WASHINGTON — Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis.
Mrs. Clinton is recruiting Jacob J. Lew, the budget director under President Bill Clinton, as one of two deputies, according to people close to the Obama transition team. Mr. Lew’s focus, they said, will be on increasing the share of financing that goes to the diplomatic corps. He and James B. Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, are to be Mrs. Clinton’s chief lieutenants.
Nominations of deputy secretaries, like Mrs. Clinton’s, would be subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The incoming administration is also likely to name several envoys, officials said, reviving a practice of the Clinton administration, when Richard C. Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and other diplomats played a central role in mediating disputes in the Balkans and the Middle East.
As Mrs. Clinton puts together her senior team, officials said, she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs, where the Treasury has dominated during the Bush years. She has sought advice from Laura D’Andrea Tyson, an economist who headed Mr. Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
The steps seem intended to strengthen the role of diplomacy after a long stretch, particularly under Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in which the Pentagon, the vice president’s office and even the intelligence agencies held considerable sway over American foreign policy.
[...]
The recruitment of Mr. Lew — for a position that was not filled in the Bush administration — suggests that Mrs. Clinton is determined to win a larger share of financial resources for the department. A well-connected figure who was once an aide to Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Mr. Lew now works for Citigroup in a unit that oversees hedge funds.
“If we’re going to re-establish diplomacy as the critical tool in America’s arsenal,” a senior transition official said, “you need someone who can work both the budget and management side. He has very strong relations on the Hill; he knows the inner workings of how to manage a big enterprise.”
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, said Mrs. Clinton was being supported in her push for more resources by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Obama’s incoming national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones Jr.
For years, some Pentagon officials have complained that jobs like the economic reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the military’s burden when they could have been handled by a robust Foreign Service.
“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”
Mrs. Clinton’s push for a more vigorous economic team, one of her advisers said, stems from her conviction that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis. Economic issues also underpin some of the most important diplomatic relationships, notably with China.
In recent years, the Treasury Department, led by Henry M. Paulson Jr., has dominated policy toward China. Mr. Paulson leads a “strategic economic dialogue” with China that involves several agencies. It is not yet clear who will pick up that role in the Obama administration, although Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is frequently mentioned as a possibility.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
NYT: Hiring Window Is Open at the Foreign Service
I had expected to be taking a hiatus from blogging for much of this week, as I am on vacation speinding Christmas with my family. However, I found this piece today at the New York Times online and wanted to pass it along.
Hiring Window Is Open at the Foreign Service
A RARE bright spot has appeared in a job landscape dominated by layoffs: the Foreign Service.
For the last several years, hiring in the United States Foreign Service was minimal because of a lack of Congressional funding. In addition, war has created an urgent need for diplomatic personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as officers have moved to these countries their previous jobs have remained unfilled.
So, in the last several months — with a new president on the horizon and new funding from Congress — both the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, are ramping back up.
A supplemental war funding bill, which became law in June, has provided money for Foreign Service hiring. And President-elect Barack Obama “has talked explicitly about the need to increase the Foreign Service and we hope he will make that a priority,” said John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association, the professional association and labor union representing career diplomats.
The State Department has asked for funding for 1,500 new positions for the current fiscal year. Of these, roughly 800 are Foreign Service and 700 civil service, said Luis Arreaga, director of recruitment, examination and employment at the department. Many of those positions are being filled because of attrition but about 160 are new. "We consider that a down payment,” said Mr. Arreaga.
Felix Salazar, hired as a junior officer by the State Department in September, said that during the interview process he felt “a sense of urgency, that they were actively hiring and really valued my experience.” Mr. Salazar, who spent three years in the Peace Corps, leaves in February for his first posting, in South Africa.
Not everyone is cut out for Foreign Service work, which can be stressful and highly demanding. About two-thirds of a diplomat’s career is spent overseas; officers usually move every two to four years and can be exposed to dangers like disease and war. The State Department offers a suitability quiz for prospective applicants on its Web site.
Yet career diplomats like Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who now heads the American Academy of Diplomacy, called it the best job in the world. “I enjoy what I’m doing now but it’s nothing like working on foreign policy,” he said. “In my 37 years of service I may have gone home tired or frustrated with how a decision came out, but I never went home and asked myself if what I was working on was worthwhile.”
Applying for a job with the State Department involves written and oral examinations. Those who pass the oral exam become conditional officers and receive a ranking score based on oral-exam performance and language skills. The higher the rank, the sooner they will be assigned.
Of the 12,000 to 15,000 people who register annually for the written exam, about 450 officers are hired, said Frank J. Coulter, management officer with the Foreign Service and a member of the State Department’s board of examiners.
The first time he took the written exam, Mr. Salazar failed, after running out of time during the essay portion. He was so determined to pass that he spent the next year writing an essay in 30 minutes every day. “When I took it the second time and got my results, it actually sent chills down my spine,” he said.
New Foreign Service officers at the State Department choose one of five career tracks: consular affairs, economic affairs, management affairs, political affairs or diplomacy. No matter the track, all entry-level officers spend their first several years working in a consulate, interviewing applicants for United States visas and working with American citizens who need their help.
The State Department also hires Foreign Service specialists, who provide technical, security and administrative support overseas or in Washington. Specialists must pass an oral assessment but not a written exam, and start in a specialty like medicine, information technology or law enforcement, Mr. Coulter said. All newly hired officers and specialists are trained at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington.
Each of the first two postings overseas last two years; after that, it is generally a three-year posting in each country. One-year hardship postings — in a region too dangerous to allow an officer’s spouse and children to accompany him or her — are required at least twice in the course of a career. After two assignments, Foreign Service personnel can bid on postings — requesting particular countries or Washington — but everyone is expected to serve in a variety of assignments, Mr. Arreaga said.
[...]
THE base salary for entry-level Foreign Service officers ranges from about $40,000 to $72,000 annually, but compensation can increase depending on the danger level of the posting and on a region’s cost of living.
For Foreign Service specialists, the salary range is anywhere from about $26,500 to more than $100,000; for civil service employees at Usaid, the salary ranges from $16,500 to over $100,000. Overseas benefits include housing and private school for dependent children.
Many of those choosing Foreign Service work do so out of a dedication to public service and see it as not just a career, but also a way of life.
Salman Khalil, hired in May, took a 50 percent cut in take-home pay to join the Foreign Service after a decade in the I.T. industry. Any day now he will leave for his first assignment, in India. “In my I.T. profession I was helping big companies make more money and it wasn’t satisfying for me,” he said. “What I wanted to do was serve in a capacity where I could directly help people.”
Hiring Window Is Open at the Foreign Service
A RARE bright spot has appeared in a job landscape dominated by layoffs: the Foreign Service.
For the last several years, hiring in the United States Foreign Service was minimal because of a lack of Congressional funding. In addition, war has created an urgent need for diplomatic personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as officers have moved to these countries their previous jobs have remained unfilled.
So, in the last several months — with a new president on the horizon and new funding from Congress — both the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, are ramping back up.
A supplemental war funding bill, which became law in June, has provided money for Foreign Service hiring. And President-elect Barack Obama “has talked explicitly about the need to increase the Foreign Service and we hope he will make that a priority,” said John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association, the professional association and labor union representing career diplomats.
The State Department has asked for funding for 1,500 new positions for the current fiscal year. Of these, roughly 800 are Foreign Service and 700 civil service, said Luis Arreaga, director of recruitment, examination and employment at the department. Many of those positions are being filled because of attrition but about 160 are new. "We consider that a down payment,” said Mr. Arreaga.
Felix Salazar, hired as a junior officer by the State Department in September, said that during the interview process he felt “a sense of urgency, that they were actively hiring and really valued my experience.” Mr. Salazar, who spent three years in the Peace Corps, leaves in February for his first posting, in South Africa.
Not everyone is cut out for Foreign Service work, which can be stressful and highly demanding. About two-thirds of a diplomat’s career is spent overseas; officers usually move every two to four years and can be exposed to dangers like disease and war. The State Department offers a suitability quiz for prospective applicants on its Web site.
Yet career diplomats like Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who now heads the American Academy of Diplomacy, called it the best job in the world. “I enjoy what I’m doing now but it’s nothing like working on foreign policy,” he said. “In my 37 years of service I may have gone home tired or frustrated with how a decision came out, but I never went home and asked myself if what I was working on was worthwhile.”
Applying for a job with the State Department involves written and oral examinations. Those who pass the oral exam become conditional officers and receive a ranking score based on oral-exam performance and language skills. The higher the rank, the sooner they will be assigned.
Of the 12,000 to 15,000 people who register annually for the written exam, about 450 officers are hired, said Frank J. Coulter, management officer with the Foreign Service and a member of the State Department’s board of examiners.
The first time he took the written exam, Mr. Salazar failed, after running out of time during the essay portion. He was so determined to pass that he spent the next year writing an essay in 30 minutes every day. “When I took it the second time and got my results, it actually sent chills down my spine,” he said.
New Foreign Service officers at the State Department choose one of five career tracks: consular affairs, economic affairs, management affairs, political affairs or diplomacy. No matter the track, all entry-level officers spend their first several years working in a consulate, interviewing applicants for United States visas and working with American citizens who need their help.
The State Department also hires Foreign Service specialists, who provide technical, security and administrative support overseas or in Washington. Specialists must pass an oral assessment but not a written exam, and start in a specialty like medicine, information technology or law enforcement, Mr. Coulter said. All newly hired officers and specialists are trained at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington.
Each of the first two postings overseas last two years; after that, it is generally a three-year posting in each country. One-year hardship postings — in a region too dangerous to allow an officer’s spouse and children to accompany him or her — are required at least twice in the course of a career. After two assignments, Foreign Service personnel can bid on postings — requesting particular countries or Washington — but everyone is expected to serve in a variety of assignments, Mr. Arreaga said.
[...]
THE base salary for entry-level Foreign Service officers ranges from about $40,000 to $72,000 annually, but compensation can increase depending on the danger level of the posting and on a region’s cost of living.
For Foreign Service specialists, the salary range is anywhere from about $26,500 to more than $100,000; for civil service employees at Usaid, the salary ranges from $16,500 to over $100,000. Overseas benefits include housing and private school for dependent children.
Many of those choosing Foreign Service work do so out of a dedication to public service and see it as not just a career, but also a way of life.
Salman Khalil, hired in May, took a 50 percent cut in take-home pay to join the Foreign Service after a decade in the I.T. industry. Any day now he will leave for his first assignment, in India. “In my I.T. profession I was helping big companies make more money and it wasn’t satisfying for me,” he said. “What I wanted to do was serve in a capacity where I could directly help people.”
Friday, December 12, 2008
Christmas? What Christmas?
Diplopundit had this piece today:
Of course, Leahy’s letter [to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)] started with this blurb for public record: “As I hope you know, I honored your request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate your 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7. Please do let me know who the other Senators are who will be accompanying you.” Heh!
Al Kamen of WaPo did a big “Hmmm” on this. He speculated that “Leahy, as Judiciary chairman, probably authorized Specter’s congressional delegation, though it’s possible he didn’t know that the “delegation” was just Specter and his wife and an aide, who are taking a military jet to Europe and the Middle East over the holidays. The itinerary includes stops in England, Israel (his 26th visit), Syria (18th) and Austria. The Austria stop is for a chat with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.”
In short, at least ten unfortunate diplomats in mostly sparkling capital cities (London, Jerusalem, Damascus, Vienna plus six more) will be working as control officers for the congressional delegation over the holidays. Sorry guys and gals, you are public servants and should never be off duty. The local staff would have to be drafted especially the drivers. The Community Liaison Officers would also need to be drafted unless no shopping spree is in order (no shopping? where's the fun in that?). I wonder if our diplomats get brownie points if they’re “it” for Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day? No, there's no overtime. What, comptime? Forgetaboutit.
I can certainly sympathize. As a Junior Officer in Jerusalem, I worked on nearly a dozen Secretary visits, numerous congressional visits (CODELS) and one First lady visit. Almost inevitably, these visits occurred over holidays or long weekends (we were actually told this was intentional so as not to "interfere" with our regular business.
We were offered comp time, but comp time expires after a relatively short period of time, so most of us were never able to use it. Small wonder we all came out of there stressed and exhausted. I was advised when I first arrived there to get out of town as often as possible to recharge my batteries, because the stress of being in a place that lives and breathes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict 24/7 is really taxing. But the reality is that it is really difficult to take time off. I came back to DC, even given as little leave as a junior officer earns, with "use or lose" leave (yes, not only did my comp time expire, but they were threatening to take away my earned annual leave).
Luckily I never had to work Christmas (purely dumb luck) or Easter (also dumb luck). And while those who did got sympathy, they got nothing else.
Of course, Leahy’s letter [to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)] started with this blurb for public record: “As I hope you know, I honored your request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate your 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7. Please do let me know who the other Senators are who will be accompanying you.” Heh!
Al Kamen of WaPo did a big “Hmmm” on this. He speculated that “Leahy, as Judiciary chairman, probably authorized Specter’s congressional delegation, though it’s possible he didn’t know that the “delegation” was just Specter and his wife and an aide, who are taking a military jet to Europe and the Middle East over the holidays. The itinerary includes stops in England, Israel (his 26th visit), Syria (18th) and Austria. The Austria stop is for a chat with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.”
In short, at least ten unfortunate diplomats in mostly sparkling capital cities (London, Jerusalem, Damascus, Vienna plus six more) will be working as control officers for the congressional delegation over the holidays. Sorry guys and gals, you are public servants and should never be off duty. The local staff would have to be drafted especially the drivers. The Community Liaison Officers would also need to be drafted unless no shopping spree is in order (no shopping? where's the fun in that?). I wonder if our diplomats get brownie points if they’re “it” for Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day? No, there's no overtime. What, comptime? Forgetaboutit.
I can certainly sympathize. As a Junior Officer in Jerusalem, I worked on nearly a dozen Secretary visits, numerous congressional visits (CODELS) and one First lady visit. Almost inevitably, these visits occurred over holidays or long weekends (we were actually told this was intentional so as not to "interfere" with our regular business.
We were offered comp time, but comp time expires after a relatively short period of time, so most of us were never able to use it. Small wonder we all came out of there stressed and exhausted. I was advised when I first arrived there to get out of town as often as possible to recharge my batteries, because the stress of being in a place that lives and breathes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict 24/7 is really taxing. But the reality is that it is really difficult to take time off. I came back to DC, even given as little leave as a junior officer earns, with "use or lose" leave (yes, not only did my comp time expire, but they were threatening to take away my earned annual leave).
Luckily I never had to work Christmas (purely dumb luck) or Easter (also dumb luck). And while those who did got sympathy, they got nothing else.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
The possibility of fairness
The Washington Blade had an article this week on how President-elect Obama's cabinet picks could impact gay rights.
A lesbian in Obama’s cabinet?
Speculation swirls around Maxwell for labor secretary
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade
President-elect Barack Obama this week was reportedly considering nominating an openly gay person to serve as labor secretary.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was considering Mary Beth Maxwell, the founding executive director of American Rights at Work, to head the Labor Department. If nominated, and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the nation’s first openly gay cabinet member.
[...]
Cabinet picks could impact gay rights
Meanwhile, Obama this week nominated several other prominent figures to fill key cabinet positions. The nominees would hold positions that would significantly influence how the administration handles gay issues.
Gays working in the State Department, for example, could benefit from Obama’s choice of gay-supportive Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as secretary of state.
The head of the State Department could change rules on how the department treats the partners of gay Foreign Service officers, who are not entitled to the same benefits as the spouses of straight Foreign Service officers.
Michelle Schohn, head of Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said partners of their gay Foreign Service officers are not included in travel orders, not eligible for health insurance, not entitled to emergency or medical evacuation, and not eligible for more than basic language and security training at the Foreign Service Institute — unlike the spouses of their straight counterparts.
The State Department also provides no help in providing visas for the partners of gay Foreign Service officers, and while the department will pick up various travel expenses when moving overseas, including the cost of transporting a pet, the department will not reimburse costs for transporting a domestic partner, she said.
Michael Guest, former U.S. ambassador to Romania, retired from the State Department last year in protest because of these inequities and said they could have been rectified by a rule change from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Guest declined to comment for this article.
Schohn said Clinton could change things by making the partners of gay Foreign Service officers “eligible family members” as opposed to considering them “members of household.”
“Senator Clinton can, with the stroke of a pen, grant the families of LGBT employees equality,” Schohn said. “I am hopeful that Senator Clinton will see this as a matter of simple fairness and offer the protections to our families that will enable us to continue to serve.”
[...]
You can read the whole article here.
A lesbian in Obama’s cabinet?
Speculation swirls around Maxwell for labor secretary
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade
President-elect Barack Obama this week was reportedly considering nominating an openly gay person to serve as labor secretary.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was considering Mary Beth Maxwell, the founding executive director of American Rights at Work, to head the Labor Department. If nominated, and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the nation’s first openly gay cabinet member.
[...]
Cabinet picks could impact gay rights
Meanwhile, Obama this week nominated several other prominent figures to fill key cabinet positions. The nominees would hold positions that would significantly influence how the administration handles gay issues.
Gays working in the State Department, for example, could benefit from Obama’s choice of gay-supportive Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as secretary of state.
The head of the State Department could change rules on how the department treats the partners of gay Foreign Service officers, who are not entitled to the same benefits as the spouses of straight Foreign Service officers.
Michelle Schohn, head of Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said partners of their gay Foreign Service officers are not included in travel orders, not eligible for health insurance, not entitled to emergency or medical evacuation, and not eligible for more than basic language and security training at the Foreign Service Institute — unlike the spouses of their straight counterparts.
The State Department also provides no help in providing visas for the partners of gay Foreign Service officers, and while the department will pick up various travel expenses when moving overseas, including the cost of transporting a pet, the department will not reimburse costs for transporting a domestic partner, she said.
Michael Guest, former U.S. ambassador to Romania, retired from the State Department last year in protest because of these inequities and said they could have been rectified by a rule change from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Guest declined to comment for this article.
Schohn said Clinton could change things by making the partners of gay Foreign Service officers “eligible family members” as opposed to considering them “members of household.”
“Senator Clinton can, with the stroke of a pen, grant the families of LGBT employees equality,” Schohn said. “I am hopeful that Senator Clinton will see this as a matter of simple fairness and offer the protections to our families that will enable us to continue to serve.”
[...]
You can read the whole article here.
Friday, December 05, 2008
AP: Clinton looks to loyalists for State Department staff
Clinton looks to loyalists for State Department staff
By Matthew Lee
Associated Press
WASHINGTON: Preparing for her new role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband's administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.
For her team of foreign policy experts, the nation's third female secretary of state is expected to draw heavily from the staff of the first, Madeleine Albright, who was an early supporter of Clinton's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And to deal with internal Obama administration affairs, State Department bureaucratic politics and media pressures, the former first lady appears set to tap current Senate aides and former White House ''Hillaryland'' stalwarts, whose reputation for insularity and staunch protectiveness has already set off anxiety among career foreign service officers.
State Department officials say they have been told to expect visits as early as next week from Clinton advisers who are working with President-elect Barack Obama's incoming transition team. Members of the new administration's team have been at State since mid-November, getting briefings and visiting officials there. Neither the transition team nor Clinton's office would comment.
Those officials and people familiar with the transition say most, if not all of Clinton's growing team of advisers will be tapped for senior State Department positions.
James Steinberg, President Bill Clinton's former deputy national security adviser, who was once thought a prospect to become Obama's national security adviser, is now ''a lock'' to become deputy secretary of state under Clinton, according to people close to the transition who spoke on condition of anonymity because no announcements have yet been made.
On the policy side, there is strong speculation that Clinton's Senate foreign policy adviser, Andrew Shapiro, will play a leading role as will Lee Feinstein, who was her national security adviser during the campaign. Feinstein is a member of the State Department transition team and served as deputy policy planning director under Albright.
For Clinton's personal staff, names already floated include longtime confidante and 2008 Clinton presidential campaign manager Maggie Williams, attorney Cheryl Mills, personal assistant Huma Abedin, current senior adviser and spokesman Philippe Reines and Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady, Melanne Verveer.
All are known to be fiercely loyal. The prospect of their imminent arrival in Foggy Bottom has been a hot topic of nervous corridor conversation among many in the professional diplomatic corps who fear they will be frozen out of positions of influence.
Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid who also worked for Clinton during the primaries, has been mentioned as a favorite to become the next State Department spokesman.
Albright's high-profile former spokesman, James Rubin, along with top Albright assistant Suzy George, have already been seen at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. They are working with a group that will smooth the way for the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Albright protege Susan Rice, whose defection to the Obama camp during the 2008 campaign caused a stir among Clinton loyalists. Rubin, based in New York, is advising the transition team.
A look at the Obama camp's agency review team for the State Department and its national security policy working group provides hints as to other potential appointments.
Among those who served in the Albright State Department are former counselor Wendy Sherman, counterterrorism coordinator Michael Sheehan, law enforcement chief Rand Beers, arms control expert Robert Einhorn, former ambassador to Indonesia Robert Gelbard and Mideast hands Daniel Kurtzer, Dennis Ross and Toni Verstandig. All are potential candidates for top slots.
One notable name on the list is Michael Guest, one of only two openly gay ambassadors ever to represent the United States overseas. Guest resigned from the foreign service in mid-career last December to protest the State Department's treatment of same-sex partners of diplomats.
By Matthew Lee
Associated Press
WASHINGTON: Preparing for her new role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband's administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.
For her team of foreign policy experts, the nation's third female secretary of state is expected to draw heavily from the staff of the first, Madeleine Albright, who was an early supporter of Clinton's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And to deal with internal Obama administration affairs, State Department bureaucratic politics and media pressures, the former first lady appears set to tap current Senate aides and former White House ''Hillaryland'' stalwarts, whose reputation for insularity and staunch protectiveness has already set off anxiety among career foreign service officers.
State Department officials say they have been told to expect visits as early as next week from Clinton advisers who are working with President-elect Barack Obama's incoming transition team. Members of the new administration's team have been at State since mid-November, getting briefings and visiting officials there. Neither the transition team nor Clinton's office would comment.
Those officials and people familiar with the transition say most, if not all of Clinton's growing team of advisers will be tapped for senior State Department positions.
James Steinberg, President Bill Clinton's former deputy national security adviser, who was once thought a prospect to become Obama's national security adviser, is now ''a lock'' to become deputy secretary of state under Clinton, according to people close to the transition who spoke on condition of anonymity because no announcements have yet been made.
On the policy side, there is strong speculation that Clinton's Senate foreign policy adviser, Andrew Shapiro, will play a leading role as will Lee Feinstein, who was her national security adviser during the campaign. Feinstein is a member of the State Department transition team and served as deputy policy planning director under Albright.
For Clinton's personal staff, names already floated include longtime confidante and 2008 Clinton presidential campaign manager Maggie Williams, attorney Cheryl Mills, personal assistant Huma Abedin, current senior adviser and spokesman Philippe Reines and Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady, Melanne Verveer.
All are known to be fiercely loyal. The prospect of their imminent arrival in Foggy Bottom has been a hot topic of nervous corridor conversation among many in the professional diplomatic corps who fear they will be frozen out of positions of influence.
Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid who also worked for Clinton during the primaries, has been mentioned as a favorite to become the next State Department spokesman.
Albright's high-profile former spokesman, James Rubin, along with top Albright assistant Suzy George, have already been seen at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. They are working with a group that will smooth the way for the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Albright protege Susan Rice, whose defection to the Obama camp during the 2008 campaign caused a stir among Clinton loyalists. Rubin, based in New York, is advising the transition team.
A look at the Obama camp's agency review team for the State Department and its national security policy working group provides hints as to other potential appointments.
Among those who served in the Albright State Department are former counselor Wendy Sherman, counterterrorism coordinator Michael Sheehan, law enforcement chief Rand Beers, arms control expert Robert Einhorn, former ambassador to Indonesia Robert Gelbard and Mideast hands Daniel Kurtzer, Dennis Ross and Toni Verstandig. All are potential candidates for top slots.
One notable name on the list is Michael Guest, one of only two openly gay ambassadors ever to represent the United States overseas. Guest resigned from the foreign service in mid-career last December to protest the State Department's treatment of same-sex partners of diplomats.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Politically Appointed Vs Career Foreign Service Officers
Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post reported this item yesterday and I have noticed quite a few mentions of it in other blogs:
Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips
By Glenn Kessler
The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.
The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.
Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.
Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.
UN Dispatch was one of the blogs commenting on the development (which, just to be clear is not a HUGE development...all ambassadors, even career Foreign Service Officers, offer their resignation at the end of an administration. It is true that some are allowed to stay, at least for a little while. This is just more overt than usual).
Politically Appointed Vs Career Foreign Service Officers?
Matthew Yglesias links to this item explaining that President-elect Barack Obama has ordered all politically appointed ambassadors to vacate their posts by January 20th. Matt says:
"I had always just thought of this is a kind of casual, widely accepted corruption. But recently I did learn the official story as to why this is good practice, namely that an important political supporter or a friend of the president is likely to have a much easier time of getting access to the Oval Office than any mere foreign service officer would. Thus, it's arguably better for the host country to have a political appointee than a career FSO. Therefore, this practice helps build good-will and so forth."
This may be true, but it should be pointed out that many ambassadors to posts that require actual trouble-shooting are often career foreign service officers. The United States ambassador to Chad Louis J. Nigro, for example, joined the foreign service in 1980. Is it really more desirable that the Ambassador to say, Holland, have easier access to the Oval Office than say, Mr. Nigiro? I'm doubtful.
I admit I am a fan of reducing (I don't expect the practice to stop) the number of political appointee Ambassadors, for a number of reasons. First, you don't see political appointee Generals or Admirals. Why? Because we expect the leaders of our soldiers to be professional soldiers themselves, with the years of training and experience they have built up coming through the ranks serving them as they make life and death decisions. Can you imagine a "Brownie" leading our troops the way Mike Brown led FEMA? Of course not. It is the same with the Foreign Service. We are the "soft power" to the military's "hard power." We are professional diplomats with the training and experience to effectively serve our country's foreign policy objectives. Just knowing the President doesn't give you those qualifications. I will admit there are political appointees who are very very good and who bring useful skill sets to the job. But there are also political appointees who bring nothing more than a receipt for their contribution. Do they have better access to the White House? Maybe. But I would hope my President would be wise enough to listen to his Ambassadors from all countries, because crisis can strike anywhere and small countries can have big global impacts.
And second, political appointees hurt morale. Most of us serve knowing that no matter how good we are, we can't expect to attain the highest positions in the Department unless we win the lottery. Only one Secretary of State has been a career Foreign Service Officer (points if you know who), and many of the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and the Ambassadors at the nicest posts are political appointees. Which sends a strong message that the rank and file don't measure up.
And the truth is we do measure up. We serve, year after year, advancing the President's foreign policy to the best of our abilities agenda regardless of who occupies the White House. Because we are professionals. And just like professional soldiers, we should be able to expect that the majority of our leaders have gotten where they are by succeeding on the same path we are walking, not by the size of their checkbook or the happenstance of their birth.
Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips
By Glenn Kessler
The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.
The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.
Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.
Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.
UN Dispatch was one of the blogs commenting on the development (which, just to be clear is not a HUGE development...all ambassadors, even career Foreign Service Officers, offer their resignation at the end of an administration. It is true that some are allowed to stay, at least for a little while. This is just more overt than usual).
Politically Appointed Vs Career Foreign Service Officers?
Matthew Yglesias links to this item explaining that President-elect Barack Obama has ordered all politically appointed ambassadors to vacate their posts by January 20th. Matt says:
"I had always just thought of this is a kind of casual, widely accepted corruption. But recently I did learn the official story as to why this is good practice, namely that an important political supporter or a friend of the president is likely to have a much easier time of getting access to the Oval Office than any mere foreign service officer would. Thus, it's arguably better for the host country to have a political appointee than a career FSO. Therefore, this practice helps build good-will and so forth."
This may be true, but it should be pointed out that many ambassadors to posts that require actual trouble-shooting are often career foreign service officers. The United States ambassador to Chad Louis J. Nigro, for example, joined the foreign service in 1980. Is it really more desirable that the Ambassador to say, Holland, have easier access to the Oval Office than say, Mr. Nigiro? I'm doubtful.
I admit I am a fan of reducing (I don't expect the practice to stop) the number of political appointee Ambassadors, for a number of reasons. First, you don't see political appointee Generals or Admirals. Why? Because we expect the leaders of our soldiers to be professional soldiers themselves, with the years of training and experience they have built up coming through the ranks serving them as they make life and death decisions. Can you imagine a "Brownie" leading our troops the way Mike Brown led FEMA? Of course not. It is the same with the Foreign Service. We are the "soft power" to the military's "hard power." We are professional diplomats with the training and experience to effectively serve our country's foreign policy objectives. Just knowing the President doesn't give you those qualifications. I will admit there are political appointees who are very very good and who bring useful skill sets to the job. But there are also political appointees who bring nothing more than a receipt for their contribution. Do they have better access to the White House? Maybe. But I would hope my President would be wise enough to listen to his Ambassadors from all countries, because crisis can strike anywhere and small countries can have big global impacts.
And second, political appointees hurt morale. Most of us serve knowing that no matter how good we are, we can't expect to attain the highest positions in the Department unless we win the lottery. Only one Secretary of State has been a career Foreign Service Officer (points if you know who), and many of the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and the Ambassadors at the nicest posts are political appointees. Which sends a strong message that the rank and file don't measure up.
And the truth is we do measure up. We serve, year after year, advancing the President's foreign policy to the best of our abilities agenda regardless of who occupies the White House. Because we are professionals. And just like professional soldiers, we should be able to expect that the majority of our leaders have gotten where they are by succeeding on the same path we are walking, not by the size of their checkbook or the happenstance of their birth.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Mission for the national security team: rebuild America's 'soft power'
There are a couple of pieces today on rebuilding America's "soft power." From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Worldview: The focus is on 'soft power'
Obama's new security team must first rebuild America's diplomatic machine.
[...]
Gates and Jones want to bolster our capacity to project "soft power" - diplomacy, and foreign aid for development and reconstruction. They view soft power as an essential complement to hard, military power, and as a way to prevent future conflicts.
Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton supports this shift, though she sought to project a tough-guy image in the presidential race. It will fall to her to implement one of the hardest parts of the new strategy - rebuilding a State Department so depleted that it can't do what needs to be done.
For years, the Bush administration derided soft power as "social work" - no substitute for the tough work of war-making. Its attitudes shifted as Afghanistan and Iraq fell apart following U.S. military actions. But the United States lacked the civilian skills to help those nations recover.
This forced the military to take on nation-building tasks for which it wasn't trained.
Meantime, Gen. David Petraeus' new emphasis on counterinsurgency doctrine stressed that such fights could not be won through military means alone, but also require political and economic components.
[...]
"What is not ... well-known," Gates said in a 2007 lecture at Kansas State University, "was the gutting of America's ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world - the 'soft power' which was so important during the Cold War."
For example, the United States has more members of military marching bands than Foreign Service officers. Gates also noted that the number of Foreign Service officers was frozen as the number of embassies grew after the Soviet Union breakup. Meantime, "the United States Agency for International Development saw deep staff cuts ... and the U.S. Information Agency was abolished."
[...]
The extent of the problem was described graphically in a report on the crisis in diplomatic readiness recently released by the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center (available at www.academyofdiplomacy.org). The report details the shortage of Foreign Service officers, and particularly of those with training in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Urdu.
At a time when America's need to engage with the world has never been greater, funding for public diplomacy has been shrinking. USIA libraries and cultural centers, where young Arabs once could interact with Americans, have long been shuttered. While terrorists set up Web chat rooms, we have no capacity to interact with a global generation that uses the Internet.
"We are not staffed to keep up with old needs, let alone new needs," said Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. He calls for more staffing for public diplomacy, new Web outreach, reopened cultural centers, and more exchanges.
[...]
It won't be easy to rebuild - and fund - soft-power agencies at a time when Obama is beset by crises. We don't know whether Clinton has the needed management skills. Obama's team will have to work together closely to give him the soft-power tools he seeks.
You can read the entire piece here.
And from Politics and Soccer:
Everyone wants a larger State Dept
[...]
But what is even better news is that Clinton, Gen. Jones (the national security adviser), and Gates at the Pentagon all signed on to Obama's core idea of shifting resources away from the Pentagon and towards the State Dept. This is a great idea and people have been screaming about it for years. [...] While the Pentagon's budget is over $500 billion and including the wars and future medical costs may rise over $1 trillion (and some idiots want to pin it to 4% of GDP), the State Dept had a measly $10 billion for FY 2008.
Despite almost universal agreement that the State Department is under-resourced, Pentagon budgets have continued to outpace State budgets in growth because of lots of Congressional pork. Probably the largest pork item is the United States Air Force. OK, that was an exaggeration, but stuff like the F-22 which is projected to cost at least $62 billion is equal to the State Dept budget for six years, and this is for an aircraft with no actual mission other than to defeat imaginary Chinese planes. Unfortunately for the State Department, it's budget doesn't create jobs in Congressional districts because they invest in people rather than buying stuff, so Congress doesn't throw $5 billion (half the State Dept's budget) at the State Dept in unwanted pork projects like they do the Pentagon.
[...]
You can read P&S's entire piece here.
Worldview: The focus is on 'soft power'
Obama's new security team must first rebuild America's diplomatic machine.
[...]
Gates and Jones want to bolster our capacity to project "soft power" - diplomacy, and foreign aid for development and reconstruction. They view soft power as an essential complement to hard, military power, and as a way to prevent future conflicts.
Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton supports this shift, though she sought to project a tough-guy image in the presidential race. It will fall to her to implement one of the hardest parts of the new strategy - rebuilding a State Department so depleted that it can't do what needs to be done.
For years, the Bush administration derided soft power as "social work" - no substitute for the tough work of war-making. Its attitudes shifted as Afghanistan and Iraq fell apart following U.S. military actions. But the United States lacked the civilian skills to help those nations recover.
This forced the military to take on nation-building tasks for which it wasn't trained.
Meantime, Gen. David Petraeus' new emphasis on counterinsurgency doctrine stressed that such fights could not be won through military means alone, but also require political and economic components.
[...]
"What is not ... well-known," Gates said in a 2007 lecture at Kansas State University, "was the gutting of America's ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world - the 'soft power' which was so important during the Cold War."
For example, the United States has more members of military marching bands than Foreign Service officers. Gates also noted that the number of Foreign Service officers was frozen as the number of embassies grew after the Soviet Union breakup. Meantime, "the United States Agency for International Development saw deep staff cuts ... and the U.S. Information Agency was abolished."
[...]
The extent of the problem was described graphically in a report on the crisis in diplomatic readiness recently released by the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center (available at www.academyofdiplomacy.org). The report details the shortage of Foreign Service officers, and particularly of those with training in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Urdu.
At a time when America's need to engage with the world has never been greater, funding for public diplomacy has been shrinking. USIA libraries and cultural centers, where young Arabs once could interact with Americans, have long been shuttered. While terrorists set up Web chat rooms, we have no capacity to interact with a global generation that uses the Internet.
"We are not staffed to keep up with old needs, let alone new needs," said Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. He calls for more staffing for public diplomacy, new Web outreach, reopened cultural centers, and more exchanges.
[...]
It won't be easy to rebuild - and fund - soft-power agencies at a time when Obama is beset by crises. We don't know whether Clinton has the needed management skills. Obama's team will have to work together closely to give him the soft-power tools he seeks.
You can read the entire piece here.
And from Politics and Soccer:
Everyone wants a larger State Dept
[...]
But what is even better news is that Clinton, Gen. Jones (the national security adviser), and Gates at the Pentagon all signed on to Obama's core idea of shifting resources away from the Pentagon and towards the State Dept. This is a great idea and people have been screaming about it for years. [...] While the Pentagon's budget is over $500 billion and including the wars and future medical costs may rise over $1 trillion (and some idiots want to pin it to 4% of GDP), the State Dept had a measly $10 billion for FY 2008.
Despite almost universal agreement that the State Department is under-resourced, Pentagon budgets have continued to outpace State budgets in growth because of lots of Congressional pork. Probably the largest pork item is the United States Air Force. OK, that was an exaggeration, but stuff like the F-22 which is projected to cost at least $62 billion is equal to the State Dept budget for six years, and this is for an aircraft with no actual mission other than to defeat imaginary Chinese planes. Unfortunately for the State Department, it's budget doesn't create jobs in Congressional districts because they invest in people rather than buying stuff, so Congress doesn't throw $5 billion (half the State Dept's budget) at the State Dept in unwanted pork projects like they do the Pentagon.
[...]
You can read P&S's entire piece here.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Dislocated Americans
Here is an article from today's NY Times about Americans, including Foreign Service spouses, living overseas. As I have mentioned before, life for spouses overseas can be difficult. For same-sex spouses, it is even harder.
The Dislocated Americans
By TANYA MOHN
More and more workers have relocated abroad in recent years, but despite the growing numbers, family issues remain a major factor in the failure of overseas postings.
The initial excitement of an exotic new posting can turn to culture shock, loneliness, identity loss and depression, and it is often the employee’s spouse and children — without the familiar routine of work — who are most affected.
“I thought it would be an adventure, and it was,” said Francesca Kelly, who moved 10 times in the first nine years as a Foreign Service spouse, living in places like Belgrade and the former Soviet Union during the cold war. But it “was much more difficult than I ever imagined it would be.”
Brenda H. Fender, director of global initiatives for Worldwide ERC, an association concerned with work force mobility, said “if the family cannot adapt, the employee will likely not succeed.”
[...]
Yvonne McNulty, a Singapore-based consultant who studies mobility issues, said the biggest issue for spouses was loss of identity. “What I found in my research is that almost all spouses face an identity crisis but only about 10 to 15 percent did something about it, by becoming authors, getting an M.B.A. or starting businesses,” she said. Most “felt they were victims, with no control.”
Even when a company offers generous support, which may include help finding housing, language training and even funds for personal development for the spouse, that is often not enough.
[Digger comments: And as I have mentioned before, the State Department does not offer much in the way of training and support for same-sex spouses. Same-sex partners are limited to a short course in language while heterosexual spouses can get a full course of language. In many cases, that full course of language later facilitates the spouse in joining the Foreign Service, because those who can pass a language test get a bump in the score on the oral part of the Foreign Service Officers Test. As for professional development funds, those are not available to same-sex spouses. In fact, same-sex spouses can not compete for jobs at post unless there are no qualified heterosexual spouses (even if the same-sex spouse is more qualified) and then must compete with all expats who apply. Heterosexual spouses get preference. And even when a same-sex partner is hired, they are often paid the local rate rather than the American rate, meaning they earn far less than the pittance given to the heterosexual spouses.]
[...]
Ms. Kelly, the Foreign Service spouse, who now lives in Bethesda, Md., and another spouse founded The Sun (The Spouses’ Underground Newsletter) as a way to create their own support community. Initially, it was an irreverent mix of poetry, opinions and the continuing tales of a fictional “highly flawed, complete disaster of a diplomatic wife,” she said.
Soon contributions took on a more serious cast; readers wanted information about where they were planning to live. By 2000, The Sun became Tales From a Small Planet, a nonprofit Web site where members can read reports on some 350 cities written by expatriates.
Patricia Linderman — living in Guayaquil, Ecuador — edits Tales and is co-author of “The Expert Expat: Your Guide to Successful Relocation Abroad” (Nicholas Brealey, 2007). She said there had been an explosion of resources in recent years that support expatriates and many now also “focus on the personal and emotional aspects of cross-cultural living,” she said.
[...]
You can read the entire article here.
The Dislocated Americans
By TANYA MOHN
More and more workers have relocated abroad in recent years, but despite the growing numbers, family issues remain a major factor in the failure of overseas postings.
The initial excitement of an exotic new posting can turn to culture shock, loneliness, identity loss and depression, and it is often the employee’s spouse and children — without the familiar routine of work — who are most affected.
“I thought it would be an adventure, and it was,” said Francesca Kelly, who moved 10 times in the first nine years as a Foreign Service spouse, living in places like Belgrade and the former Soviet Union during the cold war. But it “was much more difficult than I ever imagined it would be.”
Brenda H. Fender, director of global initiatives for Worldwide ERC, an association concerned with work force mobility, said “if the family cannot adapt, the employee will likely not succeed.”
[...]
Yvonne McNulty, a Singapore-based consultant who studies mobility issues, said the biggest issue for spouses was loss of identity. “What I found in my research is that almost all spouses face an identity crisis but only about 10 to 15 percent did something about it, by becoming authors, getting an M.B.A. or starting businesses,” she said. Most “felt they were victims, with no control.”
Even when a company offers generous support, which may include help finding housing, language training and even funds for personal development for the spouse, that is often not enough.
[Digger comments: And as I have mentioned before, the State Department does not offer much in the way of training and support for same-sex spouses. Same-sex partners are limited to a short course in language while heterosexual spouses can get a full course of language. In many cases, that full course of language later facilitates the spouse in joining the Foreign Service, because those who can pass a language test get a bump in the score on the oral part of the Foreign Service Officers Test. As for professional development funds, those are not available to same-sex spouses. In fact, same-sex spouses can not compete for jobs at post unless there are no qualified heterosexual spouses (even if the same-sex spouse is more qualified) and then must compete with all expats who apply. Heterosexual spouses get preference. And even when a same-sex partner is hired, they are often paid the local rate rather than the American rate, meaning they earn far less than the pittance given to the heterosexual spouses.]
[...]
Ms. Kelly, the Foreign Service spouse, who now lives in Bethesda, Md., and another spouse founded The Sun (The Spouses’ Underground Newsletter) as a way to create their own support community. Initially, it was an irreverent mix of poetry, opinions and the continuing tales of a fictional “highly flawed, complete disaster of a diplomatic wife,” she said.
Soon contributions took on a more serious cast; readers wanted information about where they were planning to live. By 2000, The Sun became Tales From a Small Planet, a nonprofit Web site where members can read reports on some 350 cities written by expatriates.
Patricia Linderman — living in Guayaquil, Ecuador — edits Tales and is co-author of “The Expert Expat: Your Guide to Successful Relocation Abroad” (Nicholas Brealey, 2007). She said there had been an explosion of resources in recent years that support expatriates and many now also “focus on the personal and emotional aspects of cross-cultural living,” she said.
[...]
You can read the entire article here.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Benefits for LGBT FS families
Open Season for FEHBP (Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan) closes on December 8. This afternoon, to help demonstrate to OPM that LGBT federal employees want and need health benefits for their families, HRC released the statement below. That statement includes a link to an Action Site for individuals to send letters asking OPM to support domestic partner benefits. Such benefits are particularly important for the partners of LGBT foreign service officers, who otherwise might have difficulty getting coverage in some of the countries where their partner might be serving.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 1, 2008
Brad Luna Phone: 202/216.1514 Cell: 202/812.8140
Trevor Thomas Phone: 202/216.1547 Cell: 202/250.9758
Federal Employee Groups Urge Government for Partner Benefits
“Open season” time period raises the alarm in lack of benefits for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people
WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, in conjunction with federal employee groups, today urged the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to support domestic partner benefits for federal civilian employees. Each fall, 8 million federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, are offered the opportunity to review the various health program options in a time period referred to as “open season.” For lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, this time draws attention to the existing inequality that they face when it comes to employer-provided benefits.
“The federal government should be the standard bearer for fair workplace practices,“ said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “As long as it denies lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees the comprehensive family benefits that their heterosexual colleagues receive, the federal government will fall short of that standard, and continue to lag behind the nation’s top employers.”
This year, in addition to pouring over extensive information about 269 health-plan options, cost, and quality, LGBT civil servants are asking OPM to support covering their family members as well. The health benefits which the vast majority of workers obtain through their place of work, are not extended to domestic partners of federal civil servants. While their colleagues are worried about increasing co-pays and deductibles, LGBT employees struggle to come up with 100% of the cost of insuring their partners.
Expressing her support for the issue, Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus co-chair, Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) stated, “Only when we eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace will we allow both employees and businesses to reach their full potential. As an employer, the federal government must not only set an example, but must compete with corporate America for the best-qualified workforce. Offering domestic partner benefits is a means toward both ends.”
“The most frequent concern we hear expressed by our members is the need for fairness in health benefits for their partners and families, and in having equal compensation with heterosexual employees,” said Len Hirsch, president of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government, also known as Federal GLOBE, a group that has pressed for domestic partner benefits since its inception in 1992.
Through an online website, individuals have the opportunity to write to OPM and express their desire for equal benefits. While the incoming administration has expressed its support for the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, encouraging OPM to support LGBT families improves the prospects for achieving that goal. To write to the Office of Personnel Management, visit: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/opm_dpb
The benefits programs include the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), which is used by members of congress, as well as the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Program, and the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program. “We hope that Members of Congress will extend health benefits to all Federal employees’ families – including the families of Members’ own staff,” said Derek Dorn, co-chair of the Gay, Lesbian, Allied Senate Staff (GLASS) Caucus.
“Adopting fair policies in the treatment of domestic partner benefits will not only benefit current LGBT employees of Congress, it will enable the entire government to draw highly qualified LGBT Americans, who may otherwise elect to work elsewhere, to careers in public service, “ said Victor Castillo, co-founder of the Lesbian & Gay Congressional Staff Association (LGCSA).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 1, 2008
Brad Luna Phone: 202/216.1514 Cell: 202/812.8140
Trevor Thomas Phone: 202/216.1547 Cell: 202/250.9758
Federal Employee Groups Urge Government for Partner Benefits
“Open season” time period raises the alarm in lack of benefits for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people
WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, in conjunction with federal employee groups, today urged the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to support domestic partner benefits for federal civilian employees. Each fall, 8 million federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, are offered the opportunity to review the various health program options in a time period referred to as “open season.” For lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, this time draws attention to the existing inequality that they face when it comes to employer-provided benefits.
“The federal government should be the standard bearer for fair workplace practices,“ said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “As long as it denies lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees the comprehensive family benefits that their heterosexual colleagues receive, the federal government will fall short of that standard, and continue to lag behind the nation’s top employers.”
This year, in addition to pouring over extensive information about 269 health-plan options, cost, and quality, LGBT civil servants are asking OPM to support covering their family members as well. The health benefits which the vast majority of workers obtain through their place of work, are not extended to domestic partners of federal civil servants. While their colleagues are worried about increasing co-pays and deductibles, LGBT employees struggle to come up with 100% of the cost of insuring their partners.
Expressing her support for the issue, Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus co-chair, Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) stated, “Only when we eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace will we allow both employees and businesses to reach their full potential. As an employer, the federal government must not only set an example, but must compete with corporate America for the best-qualified workforce. Offering domestic partner benefits is a means toward both ends.”
“The most frequent concern we hear expressed by our members is the need for fairness in health benefits for their partners and families, and in having equal compensation with heterosexual employees,” said Len Hirsch, president of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government, also known as Federal GLOBE, a group that has pressed for domestic partner benefits since its inception in 1992.
Through an online website, individuals have the opportunity to write to OPM and express their desire for equal benefits. While the incoming administration has expressed its support for the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, encouraging OPM to support LGBT families improves the prospects for achieving that goal. To write to the Office of Personnel Management, visit: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/opm_dpb
The benefits programs include the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), which is used by members of congress, as well as the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Program, and the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program. “We hope that Members of Congress will extend health benefits to all Federal employees’ families – including the families of Members’ own staff,” said Derek Dorn, co-chair of the Gay, Lesbian, Allied Senate Staff (GLASS) Caucus.
“Adopting fair policies in the treatment of domestic partner benefits will not only benefit current LGBT employees of Congress, it will enable the entire government to draw highly qualified LGBT Americans, who may otherwise elect to work elsewhere, to careers in public service, “ said Victor Castillo, co-founder of the Lesbian & Gay Congressional Staff Association (LGCSA).
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
I hope this Thanksgiving finds you and your family safe, happy and secure.
Our thoughts go our to our friends in Kabul, where a bomb went off near the Embassy while they were having a Thanksgiving Day event, and to those in Mumbai, where the chaos at the hands of terrorists continues.
I am thankful all of the folks serving our country in those two places are safe, and I pray for those others, both American and not, enduring the unbearable.
Our thoughts go our to our friends in Kabul, where a bomb went off near the Embassy while they were having a Thanksgiving Day event, and to those in Mumbai, where the chaos at the hands of terrorists continues.
I am thankful all of the folks serving our country in those two places are safe, and I pray for those others, both American and not, enduring the unbearable.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
More on the Overseas Pay Gap
I have to say, I really like blogs that make me snicker, and The Skeptical Bureaucrat and Consul-At-Arms are often good for that. So I thought I would share some of their take on the Overseas Pay Gap and Sen. Coburn's mistaken views on the issue.
TSB wrote Sunday about posts "Where The Pants Are Not Striped, and Cookies Are Not Pushed", one of which he recently visited for a very brief TDY. He gives you a hint or five about where that was: a volatile country...one of our most hazardous diplomatic posts. If you've been following the news, you can probably guess which diplomatic post that was from the following clues. All these incidents occurred there in the last week: a USAID contractor was ambushed and killed, an Iranian diplomat was abducted when departing his home for the office, two foreign journalists were shot, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the gates of a sports stadium, and, in a region outside the city, a missile strike of unattributed origin killed five al Qaeda figures, one of whom was reportedly a suspect in a 2006 plot to bomb ten airliners heading to the U.S. from Britain. In addition to all that, a few months ago the principal U.S. diplomat there was ambushed while en route to the office but escaped unharmed. A few weeks after that incident, the principal officer of another, non-U.S., diplomatic mission was successfully abducted in a similar attack.
Why was my pencil-pushing self in such a crazy place so far from my cubicle? Because Danger is my middle name, that's why. (Actually, Risk Analysis is my middle name, but there is no way to make that sound dashing; in fact, it should be the opposite of dashing).
More to the point, why are any of my fellow citizens there?
CAA points out that TSB's fellow citizens are there "doing the jobs that our fellow Americans send us overseas to do, per the wishes and stated desires of our elected representatives and chief executive>"
Senator Coburn's communications director John Hart, in opposing the Overseas Compatability Pay Act (which would mean that folks serving overseas would not lose the DC locality portion of their pay...Senior Foreign Service and other agencies serving overseas already get to keep their locality pay, so it is only lower- and mid-level State folks who lose it), commented, as I noted in an earlier post, that "Congress should be focused on improving conditions of workers who have lost their jobs or may lose their jobs and not on handing out huge raises to foreign service officers who already receive very generous benefits overseas." But as TSB suspects that Hart and Coburn get their image of Foreign Service life from tv and the movies, and CAA adds that we, as Foreign Service Officers, have not helped the matter. CAA writes: "Sen. Coburn's out-of-touch communications director might not be basing his under-factual statement solely on the basis of late-night movie fare. He may have actually traveled abroad on a STAFDEL or CODEL ("congressional staff delegation" or "congressional delegation," respectively). In which case some of the fault for his unrealistic impression of Foreign Service life may actual be our own fault.
When congressmen or their staff members travel overseas, describing that experience as being "inside a bubble" does not do it justice. They are met, escorted, control-officered, protected, briefed, introduced, coddled, dined-out, and expense-accounted to a fair-thee-well all the way to "wheels-up." And all by FSOs. We so want to make a good impression on our congressional visitors, after all our Department is the one without much of a natural "consituency" back home, but we do ourselves something of a disservice when we make it look too easy to our visiting fireman."
TSB says that he "like to see someone correct the American public's perception of embassy life. Some sort of Foreign Service Truth Squad that could fill in the picture of what life is like in all those places where our diplomats work out of ratty hovels rather than palatial surroundings. He rightly refers to some of the places we serve as "hell holes." Yes, we usually get housed in some of the best housing available at post, but if the best housing is a hovel (or in Iraq, a shipping container), guess what you get housed in. I had a marine tell me of his serve at one Embassy where he literally fell through the floor of the decrepit building. Guess what post housing there looks like? My housing at my last post was decent (though I did regularly get trapped in my elevator, once for more than 30 minutes while it repeatedly went up and down from the basement to the seventh floor), but our consulate (which we had rented more than 50 years ago) was a health and security hazard. And my partner returned from her last post with pollution-induced asthma.
Most of the places we serve are far from the western European posts where Senators like to visit. TSB notes: "Having seen the U.S. embassy offices and houses in Bangui, [Central African Republic] and experienced the difficulties and uncertainties of simply getting there and back, I can assure my fellow Americans that Senator Coburn's lowliest intern wouldn't want to trade life styles with the most senior diplomat there, even with the housing allowance. Much less would he want to trade places with the diplomats in the hot-spot that I was happy to drive away from at high speed last week."
Amen.
Or as CAA says: "As for the lowly interns.... I've met just one or two of those over the years who seem to still be nursing a grudge that they didn't pass the FS exam.
I'm just saying....."
Me too.
TSB wrote Sunday about posts "Where The Pants Are Not Striped, and Cookies Are Not Pushed", one of which he recently visited for a very brief TDY. He gives you a hint or five about where that was: a volatile country...one of our most hazardous diplomatic posts. If you've been following the news, you can probably guess which diplomatic post that was from the following clues. All these incidents occurred there in the last week: a USAID contractor was ambushed and killed, an Iranian diplomat was abducted when departing his home for the office, two foreign journalists were shot, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the gates of a sports stadium, and, in a region outside the city, a missile strike of unattributed origin killed five al Qaeda figures, one of whom was reportedly a suspect in a 2006 plot to bomb ten airliners heading to the U.S. from Britain. In addition to all that, a few months ago the principal U.S. diplomat there was ambushed while en route to the office but escaped unharmed. A few weeks after that incident, the principal officer of another, non-U.S., diplomatic mission was successfully abducted in a similar attack.
Why was my pencil-pushing self in such a crazy place so far from my cubicle? Because Danger is my middle name, that's why. (Actually, Risk Analysis is my middle name, but there is no way to make that sound dashing; in fact, it should be the opposite of dashing).
More to the point, why are any of my fellow citizens there?
CAA points out that TSB's fellow citizens are there "doing the jobs that our fellow Americans send us overseas to do, per the wishes and stated desires of our elected representatives and chief executive>"
Senator Coburn's communications director John Hart, in opposing the Overseas Compatability Pay Act (which would mean that folks serving overseas would not lose the DC locality portion of their pay...Senior Foreign Service and other agencies serving overseas already get to keep their locality pay, so it is only lower- and mid-level State folks who lose it), commented, as I noted in an earlier post, that "Congress should be focused on improving conditions of workers who have lost their jobs or may lose their jobs and not on handing out huge raises to foreign service officers who already receive very generous benefits overseas." But as TSB suspects that Hart and Coburn get their image of Foreign Service life from tv and the movies, and CAA adds that we, as Foreign Service Officers, have not helped the matter. CAA writes: "Sen. Coburn's out-of-touch communications director might not be basing his under-factual statement solely on the basis of late-night movie fare. He may have actually traveled abroad on a STAFDEL or CODEL ("congressional staff delegation" or "congressional delegation," respectively). In which case some of the fault for his unrealistic impression of Foreign Service life may actual be our own fault.
When congressmen or their staff members travel overseas, describing that experience as being "inside a bubble" does not do it justice. They are met, escorted, control-officered, protected, briefed, introduced, coddled, dined-out, and expense-accounted to a fair-thee-well all the way to "wheels-up." And all by FSOs. We so want to make a good impression on our congressional visitors, after all our Department is the one without much of a natural "consituency" back home, but we do ourselves something of a disservice when we make it look too easy to our visiting fireman."
TSB says that he "like to see someone correct the American public's perception of embassy life. Some sort of Foreign Service Truth Squad that could fill in the picture of what life is like in all those places where our diplomats work out of ratty hovels rather than palatial surroundings. He rightly refers to some of the places we serve as "hell holes." Yes, we usually get housed in some of the best housing available at post, but if the best housing is a hovel (or in Iraq, a shipping container), guess what you get housed in. I had a marine tell me of his serve at one Embassy where he literally fell through the floor of the decrepit building. Guess what post housing there looks like? My housing at my last post was decent (though I did regularly get trapped in my elevator, once for more than 30 minutes while it repeatedly went up and down from the basement to the seventh floor), but our consulate (which we had rented more than 50 years ago) was a health and security hazard. And my partner returned from her last post with pollution-induced asthma.
Most of the places we serve are far from the western European posts where Senators like to visit. TSB notes: "Having seen the U.S. embassy offices and houses in Bangui, [Central African Republic] and experienced the difficulties and uncertainties of simply getting there and back, I can assure my fellow Americans that Senator Coburn's lowliest intern wouldn't want to trade life styles with the most senior diplomat there, even with the housing allowance. Much less would he want to trade places with the diplomats in the hot-spot that I was happy to drive away from at high speed last week."
Amen.
Or as CAA says: "As for the lowly interns.... I've met just one or two of those over the years who seem to still be nursing a grudge that they didn't pass the FS exam.
I'm just saying....."
Me too.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Addressing the Overseas Pay Gap
This was in today's Washington Post:
Diplomatically Trying to Close Overseas Pay Gap
By Joe Davidson
Michael Keller has worked on five continents during his 15 years in the foreign service. He's been in Germany, where the standard of living is pretty good, and the Central African Republic and Cambodia, where he could only hope that his three children suffered nothing more than bumps and bruises because of poor medical care.
He likes his work, but he's always confronted with a big source of frustration -- the overseas pay gap.
When State Department diplomats are posted abroad, they lose locality pay. That's the amount added to a federal worker's salary based on where they work.
Since 1994, when locality pay started, the increase for federal employees in the D.C. area has amounted to almost 21 percent. Moving overseas from the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters and other area installations means workers lose that differential.
[...]
There is support, on Capitol Hill and in the administration, for legislation that would close the gap. Committees in the House and Senate have approved such measures.
[...]
But that support has not moved Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican physician also known as "Dr. No." He's earned that nickname because he relentlessly uses a Senate procedure to hold up bills that require additional federal spending unless the legislation provides money to pay for its project.
"Congress should be focused on improving conditions of workers who have lost their jobs or may lose their jobs and not on handing out huge raises to foreign service officers who already receive very generous benefits overseas," said John Hart, Coburn's communications director.
That kind of talk could make a diplomat get very undiplomatic. But John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association, knows how to keep his cool (which should come in handy when he's transferred to Iraq next year).
Closing the gap is not a pay raise, he said calmly. "It's fixing an unintended inequality."
Naland doesn't quarrel with Coburn's right to oppose legislation closing the gap, "but his hold is preventing his 99 colleagues from voting," Naland said. "That's just the way the Senate works nowadays."
He does quarrel, however, with Coburn's notion that foreign service officers are seeking huge raises on top of other big benefits. It's true that diplomats get a housing allowance and, in some cases, dangerous duty or hardship duty pay. But that doesn't negate the need to close the gap, especially for lower-level diplomats.
Senior foreign service officers get those same benefits, but their pay is not reduced by the locality amount when they go abroad. That cut applies only to the junior and mid-level diplomats.
Furthermore, Naland said, the "allowances were never meant to obviate the need for the basic locality pay adjustment that all other federal employees get."
That's what upsets foreign service officers -- working cheek by jowl with colleagues from the CIA, who might pretend to be foreign service officers, and other agencies whose pay is not cut when they leave the D.C. area.
"It becomes an equity issue," Keller said.
And foreign service officers don't have the option of staying in D.C. They spend most of their careers outside the country.
The issue is compounded when a diplomat takes his family abroad because the family often loses the spouse's income, too. Sonja Keller had a growing career as a journalist and public relations officer when Michael was sent to the Central African Republic.
"The financial impact was significant," she said. Her income was greater than his, but the family had to give that up. "Once I left my job, my career basically stopped," she said.
She worked in embassies where her husband was posted, but it was "generally nominal stuff," she said.
That's not the kind of information that would attract potential foreign service officers, even if they were driven by public service more than big bucks. It also makes folks like Keller wonder if they should stay in the foreign service, when their retirement funds are being shortchanged by the current pay system."
Diplopundit covers this issue very well here. She says "I know what she [Sonja Keller] means; and that's a pretty familiar spouse story. For FS spouses, the "good" jobs are paid normally about $12-13/hour; about how much you get paid as a nanny in London. I knew somebody who was paid $2o/hour once and her boss thought that was way too much money. At one post, another FS spouse, the commissary manager who took care of our tiny store had an advanced degree in dance therapy. I'm quite sure she was not an exception. There really are "good jobs" out there, as long as you don't complain that you, too, have brains. I knew somebody who left a 100K job in DC and eventually took a 36K job in some blissful country - with free housing, of course (some expensive free housing, huh?).
There are way too many somebodies with the same story ... And onebody says its greedy for folks to asked for the closure of this pay gap? Go tickle yourself silly!
The situation is even more dire for those with same-sex members of household. MOHs are not allowed to compete for even the nominal jobs available to spouses unless there is no qualified Eligible Family Member (EFM). Even then, some posts will not consider an MOH at all, or if they do, will hire them at the salary of a local hire, which is generally substantially less than what they pay EFMs. So while yes, we do sometimes get danger or hardship pay and we do get a housing allowance, our partners can usually not work at all (and this is in addition to having to pay to fly to and from the country, an expense opposite sex spouses do not have to deal with). Even if our partners stay home (which the Department admits diminishes productivity), they do not receive the Separate Maintenance Allowance that opposite sex partners receive. So when we go overseas to serve, our income is cut, our partner's income is lost, and we may still have expenses here in the states (for example, if you have a mortgage and the amount you can rent it for is less than your monthly payment).
Naland is right. This is not a huge pay raise. It is the right thing to do to help people continue to serve the country.
Diplomatically Trying to Close Overseas Pay Gap
By Joe Davidson
Michael Keller has worked on five continents during his 15 years in the foreign service. He's been in Germany, where the standard of living is pretty good, and the Central African Republic and Cambodia, where he could only hope that his three children suffered nothing more than bumps and bruises because of poor medical care.
He likes his work, but he's always confronted with a big source of frustration -- the overseas pay gap.
When State Department diplomats are posted abroad, they lose locality pay. That's the amount added to a federal worker's salary based on where they work.
Since 1994, when locality pay started, the increase for federal employees in the D.C. area has amounted to almost 21 percent. Moving overseas from the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters and other area installations means workers lose that differential.
[...]
There is support, on Capitol Hill and in the administration, for legislation that would close the gap. Committees in the House and Senate have approved such measures.
[...]
But that support has not moved Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican physician also known as "Dr. No." He's earned that nickname because he relentlessly uses a Senate procedure to hold up bills that require additional federal spending unless the legislation provides money to pay for its project.
"Congress should be focused on improving conditions of workers who have lost their jobs or may lose their jobs and not on handing out huge raises to foreign service officers who already receive very generous benefits overseas," said John Hart, Coburn's communications director.
That kind of talk could make a diplomat get very undiplomatic. But John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association, knows how to keep his cool (which should come in handy when he's transferred to Iraq next year).
Closing the gap is not a pay raise, he said calmly. "It's fixing an unintended inequality."
Naland doesn't quarrel with Coburn's right to oppose legislation closing the gap, "but his hold is preventing his 99 colleagues from voting," Naland said. "That's just the way the Senate works nowadays."
He does quarrel, however, with Coburn's notion that foreign service officers are seeking huge raises on top of other big benefits. It's true that diplomats get a housing allowance and, in some cases, dangerous duty or hardship duty pay. But that doesn't negate the need to close the gap, especially for lower-level diplomats.
Senior foreign service officers get those same benefits, but their pay is not reduced by the locality amount when they go abroad. That cut applies only to the junior and mid-level diplomats.
Furthermore, Naland said, the "allowances were never meant to obviate the need for the basic locality pay adjustment that all other federal employees get."
That's what upsets foreign service officers -- working cheek by jowl with colleagues from the CIA, who might pretend to be foreign service officers, and other agencies whose pay is not cut when they leave the D.C. area.
"It becomes an equity issue," Keller said.
And foreign service officers don't have the option of staying in D.C. They spend most of their careers outside the country.
The issue is compounded when a diplomat takes his family abroad because the family often loses the spouse's income, too. Sonja Keller had a growing career as a journalist and public relations officer when Michael was sent to the Central African Republic.
"The financial impact was significant," she said. Her income was greater than his, but the family had to give that up. "Once I left my job, my career basically stopped," she said.
She worked in embassies where her husband was posted, but it was "generally nominal stuff," she said.
That's not the kind of information that would attract potential foreign service officers, even if they were driven by public service more than big bucks. It also makes folks like Keller wonder if they should stay in the foreign service, when their retirement funds are being shortchanged by the current pay system."
Diplopundit covers this issue very well here. She says "I know what she [Sonja Keller] means; and that's a pretty familiar spouse story. For FS spouses, the "good" jobs are paid normally about $12-13/hour; about how much you get paid as a nanny in London. I knew somebody who was paid $2o/hour once and her boss thought that was way too much money. At one post, another FS spouse, the commissary manager who took care of our tiny store had an advanced degree in dance therapy. I'm quite sure she was not an exception. There really are "good jobs" out there, as long as you don't complain that you, too, have brains. I knew somebody who left a 100K job in DC and eventually took a 36K job in some blissful country - with free housing, of course (some expensive free housing, huh?).
There are way too many somebodies with the same story ... And onebody says its greedy for folks to asked for the closure of this pay gap? Go tickle yourself silly!
The situation is even more dire for those with same-sex members of household. MOHs are not allowed to compete for even the nominal jobs available to spouses unless there is no qualified Eligible Family Member (EFM). Even then, some posts will not consider an MOH at all, or if they do, will hire them at the salary of a local hire, which is generally substantially less than what they pay EFMs. So while yes, we do sometimes get danger or hardship pay and we do get a housing allowance, our partners can usually not work at all (and this is in addition to having to pay to fly to and from the country, an expense opposite sex spouses do not have to deal with). Even if our partners stay home (which the Department admits diminishes productivity), they do not receive the Separate Maintenance Allowance that opposite sex partners receive. So when we go overseas to serve, our income is cut, our partner's income is lost, and we may still have expenses here in the states (for example, if you have a mortgage and the amount you can rent it for is less than your monthly payment).
Naland is right. This is not a huge pay raise. It is the right thing to do to help people continue to serve the country.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Obama names Ambassador Guest to transition team
This from today's Washington Blade.
Obama names 7 gays to transition team
Gay groups considering Inaugural events
By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade
Officials with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team this week named at least seven openly gay people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies.
Three of the seven gays named to the transition panels — businessman Fred P. Hochberg, former San Francisco Supervisor Roberta Achtenberg, and labor attorney Elaine Kaplan — held high-level positions in the Clinton administration.
The Obama officials also named President Bush’s former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, to a transition panel assigned to review issues pertaining to the State Department. Guest became the nation’s second openly gay ambassador when Bush appointed him to the Romania post for a term lasting from 2001 to 2003.
Several national gay rights advocacy groups, meanwhile, were said to be considering whether to hold one or more gay-related events during the week of Obama’s Inauguration on Jan. 20.
During President Clinton’s inaugural festivities in 1993 and 1997, gay groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund — held as many as a dozen events, including a gay inaugural ball.
Gay choruses and gay marching bands also participated in some of Clinton’s official inaugural ceremonies. In 1993 and 1997, AIDS activists, at Clinton’s invitation, marched in the official Inaugural Parade while carrying cloth panels from the National AIDS Quilt.
Officials with HRC, the Task Force and the Victory Fund said they were deliberating over whether to sponsor gay-related events for the Obama inauguration, and HRC was expected to announce plans soon for another gay inaugural ball. But no plans had been announced by mid-week.
The seven known gays appointed to the Obama transition review teams are among more than 300 people appointed to transition review panels this week.
“The Agency Review Teams for the Obama-Biden Transition will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government as well as the White House,” a statement posted Monday on the transition team web site states.
The teams will “provide the president-elect, the vice president-elect, and key advisors with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration,” the statement says.
Presidents traditionally appoint members of their transition teams to middle and high-level posts in their administrations. Officials working in presidential election campaigns also have been named to government agency jobs and White House positions under past presidents.
A number of gay rights advocates worked in paid positions on the Obama campaign, including gay Democratic activists Brian Bond and Dave Noble. They could not be immediately reached for comment.
Last week, reports surfaced that Obama was considering appointing his highest-ranking gay campaign official, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, as successor to Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean. Dean announced last week that he would not seek another term as chair.
Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter has said neither Obama nor the transition team would comment on any potential appointees to government or party positions until such appointments are officially announced over the next several weeks.
However, several news media outlets said reliable sources from the Obama camp disclosed that former presidential contender and Obama rival Sen. Hillary Clinton was on Obama’s short list to become secretary of state. According to media reports, Eric Holder, a former D.C. prosecutor who served as deputy U.S. attorney general under the Clinton administration short list to become attorney general.
Both Clinton and Holder have strong records of support on gay rights. While serving as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the 1990s, Holder met with gay activists over the issue of anti-gay hate crimes and created a unit in the U.S. attorney’s office that specialized in prosecuting hate crimes.
Hochberg, a longtime gay Democratic Party activist from New York, served from 1998 through 2001 as President Clinton’s deputy and later acting administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Achtenberg served as Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. She later served as senior adviser to then HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros during Clinton’s second term in office.
Kaplan served in the Clinton administration as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is charged, among other things, with enforcing federal personnel policies and laws that prohibit discrimination against federal workers. Kaplan put in place policies that protected federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those policies were later reversed by Kaplan’s replacement at the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, a Bush appointee.
Bloch recently resigned at the request of the White House following allegations that he politicized the office’s hiring and enforcement policies.
Guest had served for nearly 20 years as a career U.S. Foreign Service officer at the time Bush named him ambassador to Romania in 2001. After completing his term as ambassador in 2003, he became dean of the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, which trains Foreign Service officers.
Guest created a stir in 2007 when he announced he was retiring from government service, in part, to protest a State Department policy that denies spousal benefits, including security protections, to same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers stationed at overseas posts. He said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had authority to provide some of the partner benefits but she declined to do so.
Earlier this year, Guest said he was supporting Obama’s presidential bid.
The other openly gay members named to the transition review teams, in addition to Hochberg, Achtenberg, and Guest, include Rick Stamberger, president and CEO of SmartBrief, Inc., an online news publisher; Brad Kiley, an official with the Washington-based Center for American Progress think tank; and Thomas Soto, co-founder of Craton Equity Partners, a large “clean technology” investment fund based in Southern California.
Stamberger is serving on a transition panel reviewing the White House Fellows program. Kiley and Soto are serving on panels reviewing the Executive Office of the President, with Soto focusing on the workings of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Obama names 7 gays to transition team
Gay groups considering Inaugural events
By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade
Officials with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team this week named at least seven openly gay people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies.
Three of the seven gays named to the transition panels — businessman Fred P. Hochberg, former San Francisco Supervisor Roberta Achtenberg, and labor attorney Elaine Kaplan — held high-level positions in the Clinton administration.
The Obama officials also named President Bush’s former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, to a transition panel assigned to review issues pertaining to the State Department. Guest became the nation’s second openly gay ambassador when Bush appointed him to the Romania post for a term lasting from 2001 to 2003.
Several national gay rights advocacy groups, meanwhile, were said to be considering whether to hold one or more gay-related events during the week of Obama’s Inauguration on Jan. 20.
During President Clinton’s inaugural festivities in 1993 and 1997, gay groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund — held as many as a dozen events, including a gay inaugural ball.
Gay choruses and gay marching bands also participated in some of Clinton’s official inaugural ceremonies. In 1993 and 1997, AIDS activists, at Clinton’s invitation, marched in the official Inaugural Parade while carrying cloth panels from the National AIDS Quilt.
Officials with HRC, the Task Force and the Victory Fund said they were deliberating over whether to sponsor gay-related events for the Obama inauguration, and HRC was expected to announce plans soon for another gay inaugural ball. But no plans had been announced by mid-week.
The seven known gays appointed to the Obama transition review teams are among more than 300 people appointed to transition review panels this week.
“The Agency Review Teams for the Obama-Biden Transition will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government as well as the White House,” a statement posted Monday on the transition team web site states.
The teams will “provide the president-elect, the vice president-elect, and key advisors with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration,” the statement says.
Presidents traditionally appoint members of their transition teams to middle and high-level posts in their administrations. Officials working in presidential election campaigns also have been named to government agency jobs and White House positions under past presidents.
A number of gay rights advocates worked in paid positions on the Obama campaign, including gay Democratic activists Brian Bond and Dave Noble. They could not be immediately reached for comment.
Last week, reports surfaced that Obama was considering appointing his highest-ranking gay campaign official, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, as successor to Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean. Dean announced last week that he would not seek another term as chair.
Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter has said neither Obama nor the transition team would comment on any potential appointees to government or party positions until such appointments are officially announced over the next several weeks.
However, several news media outlets said reliable sources from the Obama camp disclosed that former presidential contender and Obama rival Sen. Hillary Clinton was on Obama’s short list to become secretary of state. According to media reports, Eric Holder, a former D.C. prosecutor who served as deputy U.S. attorney general under the Clinton administration short list to become attorney general.
Both Clinton and Holder have strong records of support on gay rights. While serving as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the 1990s, Holder met with gay activists over the issue of anti-gay hate crimes and created a unit in the U.S. attorney’s office that specialized in prosecuting hate crimes.
Hochberg, a longtime gay Democratic Party activist from New York, served from 1998 through 2001 as President Clinton’s deputy and later acting administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Achtenberg served as Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. She later served as senior adviser to then HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros during Clinton’s second term in office.
Kaplan served in the Clinton administration as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is charged, among other things, with enforcing federal personnel policies and laws that prohibit discrimination against federal workers. Kaplan put in place policies that protected federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those policies were later reversed by Kaplan’s replacement at the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, a Bush appointee.
Bloch recently resigned at the request of the White House following allegations that he politicized the office’s hiring and enforcement policies.
Guest had served for nearly 20 years as a career U.S. Foreign Service officer at the time Bush named him ambassador to Romania in 2001. After completing his term as ambassador in 2003, he became dean of the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, which trains Foreign Service officers.
Guest created a stir in 2007 when he announced he was retiring from government service, in part, to protest a State Department policy that denies spousal benefits, including security protections, to same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers stationed at overseas posts. He said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had authority to provide some of the partner benefits but she declined to do so.
Earlier this year, Guest said he was supporting Obama’s presidential bid.
The other openly gay members named to the transition review teams, in addition to Hochberg, Achtenberg, and Guest, include Rick Stamberger, president and CEO of SmartBrief, Inc., an online news publisher; Brad Kiley, an official with the Washington-based Center for American Progress think tank; and Thomas Soto, co-founder of Craton Equity Partners, a large “clean technology” investment fund based in Southern California.
Stamberger is serving on a transition panel reviewing the White House Fellows program. Kiley and Soto are serving on panels reviewing the Executive Office of the President, with Soto focusing on the workings of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
For the First Time, in a Long Time, Hope
This comes from President-Elect Obama's Transition website.
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan
[...]
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
[...]
You can read more here.
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan
[...]
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
[...]
You can read more here.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
USAID Contractor Killed In Pakistan
From USAID:
From USAID Administrator, Henrietta H. Fore
On USAID Contractor Killed In Pakistan
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was saddened to learn that two members of our valued professional team were shot and killed Wednesday in the Peshawar province of Pakistan. Stephen D. Vance, a USAID contractor with CHF International and his driver were serving the common interests of the U.S. and Pakistan in bringing peace and stability to a country that has long been wracked by violence and conflict.
Stephen was deeply committed to his work on a USAID-funded job creation and workforce development project in Pakistan's FATA region, and he was highly respected by his colleagues in Pakistan and throughout his organization. He had fully immersed himself in the community in which he worked. We extend our most heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of these fallen colleagues.
American men and women and foreign nationals alike put their lives on the line every day in an effort to further the humanitarian and development programs throughout the world and they deserve our deepest gratitude. It is this dedication and compassion that keeps us all dutifully committed to our work.
From USAID Administrator, Henrietta H. Fore
On USAID Contractor Killed In Pakistan
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was saddened to learn that two members of our valued professional team were shot and killed Wednesday in the Peshawar province of Pakistan. Stephen D. Vance, a USAID contractor with CHF International and his driver were serving the common interests of the U.S. and Pakistan in bringing peace and stability to a country that has long been wracked by violence and conflict.
Stephen was deeply committed to his work on a USAID-funded job creation and workforce development project in Pakistan's FATA region, and he was highly respected by his colleagues in Pakistan and throughout his organization. He had fully immersed himself in the community in which he worked. We extend our most heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of these fallen colleagues.
American men and women and foreign nationals alike put their lives on the line every day in an effort to further the humanitarian and development programs throughout the world and they deserve our deepest gratitude. It is this dedication and compassion that keeps us all dutifully committed to our work.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Next SecState
There has been a lot of speculation floating around about who will be the next Secretary of State. I have heard (only from the media) Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. John Kerry floated around. Diplopundit has done a bit of speculating here and here. Here is the latest, this from CNN.
Hillary Clinton's name mentioned as possible Secretary of State
From CNN's Jessica Yellin and Gloria Borger
(CNN) — Two sources close to the Obama transition team tell CNN that Senator Hillary Clinton’s name has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of State.
One source close to Hillary Clinton tells CNN that as of early yesterday, Senator Clinton had not been contacted by the transition team about a possible cabinet appointment. This same source tells CNN that Senator Clinton would not necessarily dismiss such an offer.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Philippe Reines, tells CNN “Any speculation about cabinet or other administration appointments is really for President-Elect Obama's transition team to address.”
On Monday night, while walking into an awards ceremony in New York, Senator Clinton was asked if she would consider taking a post in the Obama administration. She replied, "I am happy being a Senator from New York, I love this state and this city. I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful."
Hillary Clinton's name mentioned as possible Secretary of State
From CNN's Jessica Yellin and Gloria Borger
(CNN) — Two sources close to the Obama transition team tell CNN that Senator Hillary Clinton’s name has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of State.
One source close to Hillary Clinton tells CNN that as of early yesterday, Senator Clinton had not been contacted by the transition team about a possible cabinet appointment. This same source tells CNN that Senator Clinton would not necessarily dismiss such an offer.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Philippe Reines, tells CNN “Any speculation about cabinet or other administration appointments is really for President-Elect Obama's transition team to address.”
On Monday night, while walking into an awards ceremony in New York, Senator Clinton was asked if she would consider taking a post in the Obama administration. She replied, "I am happy being a Senator from New York, I love this state and this city. I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful."
Monday, November 10, 2008
On Prop 8
Thank you, Mr.Olbermann
Here is the text of his Special Comment:
"Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
---
Good night, and good luck."
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
VOTE!
I know it is a cliche', but I am going to say anyway what you already know. Vote. It is important.
Lots of folks have died to give you the right to vote. Lots more have died in other countries for want of what you have, the right to have your say. Vote for them. People you have known and loved in your lifetime were excluded from the right to vote because they weren't white or weren't male. Vote for them.
People, including the military and the foreign service, are STILL serving, STILL sacrificing, STILL dying, for your right to vote. Twenty-nine years ago today, on November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students took over our embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Those diplomats were serving for you, serving you and your right to vote. (You can read more about that and see the names of the hostages on Diplopundit.) Vote for them too.
Even if the person you support doesn't win, honor the fact that you get to have a say because so many have fought for it before you. Please don't throw that away.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Diplopundit on Reforming the State Department: A Look Back
Diplopundit has a good piece today on reforming the State Department.
Reforming the State Department: A Look Back
Eight years ago as the new Bush administration came into office, an independent Task Force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies came out with a report on State Department Reform. The bipartisan group was led by Frank C. Carlucci, who was a former Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Secretary of Defense (1987-1989) and National Security Advisor (1987).
It is striking that some of the key issues addressed in this report have not really gone away. If I did not know that this was written in 2001, I’d think that this was written for the new president who will come into office in 75 days.
In its Memo to the President, the Task Force listed six problematic areas at the State Department - from long-term mismanagement to antiquated equipment, and dilapidated and insecure facilities. (Note: Thanks to Secretary Powell, State has gotten out of the Wang wilderness. On facilities, from 1999 to the end of calendar year 2005, State completed construction of 18 embassies and consulates at a cost of approximately $1.3 billion). But in 2008, one cannot help but marvel at this prescient perspective:
“These deficits are not only a disservice to the high-caliber men and women of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service who serve their country under the Department of State. They also handicap the ability of the United States to shape and respond to the opportunities and growing challenges of the 21st century. If this deterioration continues, our ability to use statecraft to avoid, manage, and resolve crises and to deter aggression will decline, increasing the likelihood that America will have to use military force to protect our interests abroad. In short, renewal of America’s foreign policy making and implementing machinery is an urgent national security priority.”
[...]
“Finally, not only has America’s foreign policy agenda become heavier, more interdisciplinary, and more complex, but it has to be exercised in an environment of growing threats. As societies abroad continue to experience radical social and economic change, they will become more unstable and at times less hospitable to Americans. And the danger posed by international terrorism is increasing. The last decade’s bombings against U.S. military and diplomatic facilities demonstrate that terrorist networks will become more global in reach, will wield greater destructive capacities, and will be more difficult to track and counter.”
“The Department of State’s human resource practices and administrative policies are dysfunctional.The department’s “up-and-out” promotion system is having the unintended effect of forcing qualified personnel out of the service. Its antiquated recruitment process is unable to meet the department’s workforce needs in both number and skills. The department’s lack of professional training opportunities for its personnel, its inattention to the family needs of its overseas personnel, and its inflexible grievance system have become major incentives for employees to seek work elsewhere.”
[...]
We need our smartest and our brightest to come forward now (not later, after retirement) and say here are the things that needs fixing and here’s how we’re going to fix them; here’s why we need your help and here’s what you will get in return, and here are the consequences for our inaction. But this is Colonel Boyd’s to be or to do moment, the proverbial fork on the road. So...who will come forward? Anybody there?
The sad part is, I can very well imagine us in 2020, looking back at this point and adding a few more dozen reports to the bibliography of reforming the State Department. Among those major incentives to work elsewhere, I would argue, is the Department's continued treatment of its gay and lesbian employees as second class citizens. In a time when the Department is desperately understaffed and extending the time folks can stay on the register in order to fill all the slots they have for incoming Foreign Service Officers, current FSOs continue to have to choose between family and career. Many of the changes necessary to make the Department more friendly to gay and lesbian families are purely regulatory, and yet the Department continues to drag its feet and offer crumbs. Yes, it is nice that the partners of GLBT employees can now sit in the empty seats in the Security Overseas Seminar and it is great that they can take the short course in language. But when will the Department offer more assistance with visa, both overseas and here, so families can stay together? When will they offer equal employment opportunities to the spouses of GLBT employees so that their families can make ends meet?
Reforming the State Department: A Look Back
Eight years ago as the new Bush administration came into office, an independent Task Force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies came out with a report on State Department Reform. The bipartisan group was led by Frank C. Carlucci, who was a former Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Secretary of Defense (1987-1989) and National Security Advisor (1987).
It is striking that some of the key issues addressed in this report have not really gone away. If I did not know that this was written in 2001, I’d think that this was written for the new president who will come into office in 75 days.
In its Memo to the President, the Task Force listed six problematic areas at the State Department - from long-term mismanagement to antiquated equipment, and dilapidated and insecure facilities. (Note: Thanks to Secretary Powell, State has gotten out of the Wang wilderness. On facilities, from 1999 to the end of calendar year 2005, State completed construction of 18 embassies and consulates at a cost of approximately $1.3 billion). But in 2008, one cannot help but marvel at this prescient perspective:
“These deficits are not only a disservice to the high-caliber men and women of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service who serve their country under the Department of State. They also handicap the ability of the United States to shape and respond to the opportunities and growing challenges of the 21st century. If this deterioration continues, our ability to use statecraft to avoid, manage, and resolve crises and to deter aggression will decline, increasing the likelihood that America will have to use military force to protect our interests abroad. In short, renewal of America’s foreign policy making and implementing machinery is an urgent national security priority.”
[...]
“Finally, not only has America’s foreign policy agenda become heavier, more interdisciplinary, and more complex, but it has to be exercised in an environment of growing threats. As societies abroad continue to experience radical social and economic change, they will become more unstable and at times less hospitable to Americans. And the danger posed by international terrorism is increasing. The last decade’s bombings against U.S. military and diplomatic facilities demonstrate that terrorist networks will become more global in reach, will wield greater destructive capacities, and will be more difficult to track and counter.”
“The Department of State’s human resource practices and administrative policies are dysfunctional.The department’s “up-and-out” promotion system is having the unintended effect of forcing qualified personnel out of the service. Its antiquated recruitment process is unable to meet the department’s workforce needs in both number and skills. The department’s lack of professional training opportunities for its personnel, its inattention to the family needs of its overseas personnel, and its inflexible grievance system have become major incentives for employees to seek work elsewhere.”
[...]
We need our smartest and our brightest to come forward now (not later, after retirement) and say here are the things that needs fixing and here’s how we’re going to fix them; here’s why we need your help and here’s what you will get in return, and here are the consequences for our inaction. But this is Colonel Boyd’s to be or to do moment, the proverbial fork on the road. So...who will come forward? Anybody there?
The sad part is, I can very well imagine us in 2020, looking back at this point and adding a few more dozen reports to the bibliography of reforming the State Department. Among those major incentives to work elsewhere, I would argue, is the Department's continued treatment of its gay and lesbian employees as second class citizens. In a time when the Department is desperately understaffed and extending the time folks can stay on the register in order to fill all the slots they have for incoming Foreign Service Officers, current FSOs continue to have to choose between family and career. Many of the changes necessary to make the Department more friendly to gay and lesbian families are purely regulatory, and yet the Department continues to drag its feet and offer crumbs. Yes, it is nice that the partners of GLBT employees can now sit in the empty seats in the Security Overseas Seminar and it is great that they can take the short course in language. But when will the Department offer more assistance with visa, both overseas and here, so families can stay together? When will they offer equal employment opportunities to the spouses of GLBT employees so that their families can make ends meet?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
From guest blogger Kelly Kilpatrick: 5 Foreign Policy Blogs Worth Looking Into
The following was written by Kelly Kilpatrick, who asked if she could do a guest entry on LAJ. I hope you find it useful.
5 Foreign Policy Blogs Worth Looking Into
Although we may not always agree with what others are saying, it is a fundamental right of free speech to be able to speak one’s mind. In order to prepare for what’s to come, one must know what others are thinking and why they think that way. Foreign policy can be a divisive issue, as can domestic policy; blogging gives people the opportunity to express their views and initiate a dialogue about the current state of the world. Here is a short list of blogs that discuss foreign policy and a brief description of each one.
Foreign Policy Passport: This blog comes straight to you from the editors of Foreign Policy Magazine. Browse through the blog for opinions on the latest foreign policy issues and different views on stories from the magazine. There are many interesting snippets related to what’s going on around the world in the way of other countries’ own attempts at improvement as well as pieces related to the US and its role in the world.
Foreign Policy in Focus: The purpose of this think tank’s website is to help initiate a dialogue related to US foreign policy. From articles related to how our domestic policy affects the way we create foreign policy, to news on the presidential candidates and their running mates’ experience and plans for the future, Foreign Policy in Focus certainly does focus in on specific foreign policy issues.
Foreign Policy Watch: Political analysis and diplomacy are the primary topics discussed on this foreign policy blog. Take a look through recent articles and posts, or search through their archives for past analysis and see what the bloggers at Foreign Policy Watch have to say about the issues you’re concerned about.
American Footprints: For cutting-edge commentary on issues around the world, look no further than American Footprints. Regularly updated, this blog tries to get at the heart of the matter when it comes to foreign policy, whether it’s something we want to hear or not. Of course, these are just opinions, but sites like this one allow us to read and understand what others are thinking, ultimately leaving it up to us to decide how we feel about the issues.
Young Professionals in Foreign Policy Blog: There are a wide variety of different people that contribute to the content of this blog. Linked to its sister website, which posts articles on foreign policy and affairs, the Young Professionals in Foreign Policy Blog has government employees, think tank members, and others in the field of foreign policy making posts about a wide variety of issues regarding foreign policy and its ramifications around the world.
By-line:
This post was contributed by Kelly Kilpatrick, who writes on the subject of a masters program for criminal justice. She invites your feedback at kellykilpatrick24 at gmail dot com
5 Foreign Policy Blogs Worth Looking Into
Although we may not always agree with what others are saying, it is a fundamental right of free speech to be able to speak one’s mind. In order to prepare for what’s to come, one must know what others are thinking and why they think that way. Foreign policy can be a divisive issue, as can domestic policy; blogging gives people the opportunity to express their views and initiate a dialogue about the current state of the world. Here is a short list of blogs that discuss foreign policy and a brief description of each one.
Foreign Policy Passport: This blog comes straight to you from the editors of Foreign Policy Magazine. Browse through the blog for opinions on the latest foreign policy issues and different views on stories from the magazine. There are many interesting snippets related to what’s going on around the world in the way of other countries’ own attempts at improvement as well as pieces related to the US and its role in the world.
Foreign Policy in Focus: The purpose of this think tank’s website is to help initiate a dialogue related to US foreign policy. From articles related to how our domestic policy affects the way we create foreign policy, to news on the presidential candidates and their running mates’ experience and plans for the future, Foreign Policy in Focus certainly does focus in on specific foreign policy issues.
Foreign Policy Watch: Political analysis and diplomacy are the primary topics discussed on this foreign policy blog. Take a look through recent articles and posts, or search through their archives for past analysis and see what the bloggers at Foreign Policy Watch have to say about the issues you’re concerned about.
American Footprints: For cutting-edge commentary on issues around the world, look no further than American Footprints. Regularly updated, this blog tries to get at the heart of the matter when it comes to foreign policy, whether it’s something we want to hear or not. Of course, these are just opinions, but sites like this one allow us to read and understand what others are thinking, ultimately leaving it up to us to decide how we feel about the issues.
Young Professionals in Foreign Policy Blog: There are a wide variety of different people that contribute to the content of this blog. Linked to its sister website, which posts articles on foreign policy and affairs, the Young Professionals in Foreign Policy Blog has government employees, think tank members, and others in the field of foreign policy making posts about a wide variety of issues regarding foreign policy and its ramifications around the world.
By-line:
This post was contributed by Kelly Kilpatrick, who writes on the subject of a masters program for criminal justice. She invites your feedback at kellykilpatrick24 at gmail dot com
Retired U.S. Foreign Service Officers for Obama
I found this today at Durango Dave's blog:
Retired U.S. Foreign Service Officers for Obama
Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Bridges writing at The Huffington Post says:
"A friend and former colleague of mine in the Foreign Service, Kevin McGuire, some time ago drafted a short statement of support for Obama and began to ask retired Foreign Service officers if they would sign it. So far 334 of us have done so, including by my count 66 former American ambassadors.
If you would like to know why we have done so and who we are, you can find our reasons and our signatures at Foreign Policy for Obama.Com: Declaration of Support by Over 280 Former Diplomats.
You can go to ForeignPolicyforObama.com and click on the link in the left hand column.
I will remind you that the Foreign Service of the United States is our country's career diplomatic and consular service. We staff both the State Department in Washington and our embassies and consulates abroad. Usually two-thirds or more of our ambassadors are Foreign Service officers, although both Democratic and Republican administrations have made a number of ambassadorial appointments for political reasons. Some of these Republican appointees and, by my count, two former career officers, have come out for McCain."
As Ambassador Bridges points out, these are people who understand America's role in the world better than most politicians and pundits. Their support for Obama adds considerable substance to the idea that Barack is the best candidate to deal with America's international issues and restore our reputation as the "Good Guys" that has been severely damaged by Bush-Cheney.
You can read the entire Ambassador Bridge's entire piece here. Democracy In Trouble also covers the endorsement here.
Retired U.S. Foreign Service Officers for Obama
Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Bridges writing at The Huffington Post says:
"A friend and former colleague of mine in the Foreign Service, Kevin McGuire, some time ago drafted a short statement of support for Obama and began to ask retired Foreign Service officers if they would sign it. So far 334 of us have done so, including by my count 66 former American ambassadors.
If you would like to know why we have done so and who we are, you can find our reasons and our signatures at Foreign Policy for Obama.Com: Declaration of Support by Over 280 Former Diplomats.
You can go to ForeignPolicyforObama.com and click on the link in the left hand column.
I will remind you that the Foreign Service of the United States is our country's career diplomatic and consular service. We staff both the State Department in Washington and our embassies and consulates abroad. Usually two-thirds or more of our ambassadors are Foreign Service officers, although both Democratic and Republican administrations have made a number of ambassadorial appointments for political reasons. Some of these Republican appointees and, by my count, two former career officers, have come out for McCain."
As Ambassador Bridges points out, these are people who understand America's role in the world better than most politicians and pundits. Their support for Obama adds considerable substance to the idea that Barack is the best candidate to deal with America's international issues and restore our reputation as the "Good Guys" that has been severely damaged by Bush-Cheney.
You can read the entire Ambassador Bridge's entire piece here. Democracy In Trouble also covers the endorsement here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
