Diplopundit has some interesting thoughts on Transforming and Transformational Diplomacy and what the Department should do to make progress on those fronts.
As John Kotter writes in The Heart of Change, "People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings." The Foreign Service has some of the best and the brightest men and women this country has to offer. Most if not all, have their ears on the ground and recognizes the realities that require a revitalized diplomacy as a primary tool of foreign policy.
So, the challenge to the State leadership is this - how seriously does it want transformational diplomacy to work and take roots beyond the next 10 months, and beyond the front pages of the news rags. If serious enough, then it has to do a better job at understanding what people are feeling, and its needs to address the employees' anxieties and distrust as one of the primary components of this necessary journey.
And oh yes, I think it would also be helpful if it starts delivering messages directly to the employees instead of the news media first.
You can read the entire post here.
Monday, March 31, 2008
WAMU: The Future of the Foreign Service
Today at noon on WAMU (88.5FM, the radio station for American University) there will be a discussion of the FS. Streaming audio of the show will be available approximately one hour after the show ends.
The Future of the Foreign Service
They're a key tool in the exercise of America's "soft power"- civilian diplomats tasked with representing America across the globe. Kojo explores the major challenges confronting America's diplomatic corps in a time of evolving international challenges.
Guests
* Steve Kelly, Senior Foreign Service Officer and Division Director in the Career Development and Assignments Office, U.S. Department of State
* Steven Kashkett, Vice President, American Foreign Service Association
* Carlos Pascual, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (2000-2003)
* Ann Syrett, Chief of the Outreach Branch and Coordinator for the Diplomats in Residence Program, U.S. Department of State
The Future of the Foreign Service
They're a key tool in the exercise of America's "soft power"- civilian diplomats tasked with representing America across the globe. Kojo explores the major challenges confronting America's diplomatic corps in a time of evolving international challenges.
Guests
* Steve Kelly, Senior Foreign Service Officer and Division Director in the Career Development and Assignments Office, U.S. Department of State
* Steven Kashkett, Vice President, American Foreign Service Association
* Carlos Pascual, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (2000-2003)
* Ann Syrett, Chief of the Outreach Branch and Coordinator for the Diplomats in Residence Program, U.S. Department of State
Sunday, March 30, 2008
"The Way I See Things" comments on FSOs speaking out
The Way I See Things, which seems to be a new blog by an FSO, comments on Taking the King's Shilling.
...Today we have a professional civil service and foreign service. Foreign service officers serve for decades, building up experience and gaining real-world insight into diplomatic relations. We are experts on foreign affairs (much as military officers are experts on military tactics, operational art, and strategy). People who argue that we take the shilling, so we should shut up and do the bidding, correctly note that our job is to carry out the foreign policy of our elected leaders. They miss, however, the equally important point that our job is also to provide expertise and advice to that elected leadership, most of whom come to the job with a few foreign policy advisers who have outstanding academic and theoretical credentials, but precious little real-world experience.
Without getting into the minutae of why I think our Iraq policy is seriously flawed, I think telling foreign service officers that they are wrong to point out the flaws they see in this policy is dangerous and short-sighted.
You can read the entire post here.
...Today we have a professional civil service and foreign service. Foreign service officers serve for decades, building up experience and gaining real-world insight into diplomatic relations. We are experts on foreign affairs (much as military officers are experts on military tactics, operational art, and strategy). People who argue that we take the shilling, so we should shut up and do the bidding, correctly note that our job is to carry out the foreign policy of our elected leaders. They miss, however, the equally important point that our job is also to provide expertise and advice to that elected leadership, most of whom come to the job with a few foreign policy advisers who have outstanding academic and theoretical credentials, but precious little real-world experience.
Without getting into the minutae of why I think our Iraq policy is seriously flawed, I think telling foreign service officers that they are wrong to point out the flaws they see in this policy is dangerous and short-sighted.
You can read the entire post here.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
U.S. to be one of THREE superpowers?
The NY Times Sunday Book Review has a review today of THE SECOND WORLD, a book by Parag Khanna. Khanna predicts that the U.S. will be one of three superpowers, the other two being China and the European Union. The review suggests the State Department will need to play an important role in this future if the U.S. is to compete.
Still, if the United States is going to compete successfully, the next administration must undertake some deep-seated fixes at the State Department. In the Arab world, Khanna notes, Chinese diplomats “show deference to local culture by learning Arabic and even taking Arabic names.” America will not become more diplomatically competitive by cutting the State Department further, as many conservatives would like. Already, America’s image and standing in the world have been weakened immensely by closing American libraries and consulates, or putting them behind forbidding security barriers ....The diplomatic ranks need to grow; there are more musicians in America’s military bands than there are foreign service officers, and the generals and admirals who head the various commands, like the Central Command or Centcom in Florida, have more aides and advisers than the country has ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state.
You can read the entire review here.
Still, if the United States is going to compete successfully, the next administration must undertake some deep-seated fixes at the State Department. In the Arab world, Khanna notes, Chinese diplomats “show deference to local culture by learning Arabic and even taking Arabic names.” America will not become more diplomatically competitive by cutting the State Department further, as many conservatives would like. Already, America’s image and standing in the world have been weakened immensely by closing American libraries and consulates, or putting them behind forbidding security barriers ....The diplomatic ranks need to grow; there are more musicians in America’s military bands than there are foreign service officers, and the generals and admirals who head the various commands, like the Central Command or Centcom in Florida, have more aides and advisers than the country has ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state.
You can read the entire review here.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sad News Out of Iraq
TSB reports the sad news out of Iraq that yet another American has died in the recent mortar shellings of the International Zone in Iraq. This is to say nothing of the countless Iraqis and third-country nationals who also work for us there and have been killed. Those names never make the press but they are a loss to our family as well. I watched as a collegue who just returned from Iraq watched and read the press reports with a pained expression. These are her friends, her family from her year there. I too worry about the folks back in Jerusalem when the violence escalates there. I can only imagine what it must feel like to hear about them being bombed. My thoughts are with the families of the hurt and killed, including the members of their FS family.
Second USG Employee Killed This Week in Green Zone Rocket Attacks
The Associated Press is reporting tonight that a U.S. government employee was killed Thursday by rocket fire into Baghdad's Green Zone. Volleys of rockets and mortars have been fired into the Green Zone intermittently for the past four days.
At least one death was reported inside the Green Zone in the latest attacks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said a U.S. government employee was killed, but would give no further details until relatives are notified. Another American, a financial analyst who audited contracts in Iraq, was killed Sunday in the zone, the embassy and relatives said earlier this week.
Another U.S. official said that personnel — who usually sleep two to a trailer on the embassy grounds — are now sleeping inside the former Saddam palace where their offices are located. "There are cots everywhere," the U.S. official said. "People are scouting out free couches."
The official — who has been through other attacks — described the recent barrages as "qualitatively different." "There is a sense of hunkering down for a sustained period of time," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security restrictions.
The last sustained attacks on the Green Zone were in July when extremists unleashed a barrage of more than a dozen mortars or rockets, killing at least three people — including an American — and wounding 18.
Second USG Employee Killed This Week in Green Zone Rocket Attacks
The Associated Press is reporting tonight that a U.S. government employee was killed Thursday by rocket fire into Baghdad's Green Zone. Volleys of rockets and mortars have been fired into the Green Zone intermittently for the past four days.
At least one death was reported inside the Green Zone in the latest attacks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said a U.S. government employee was killed, but would give no further details until relatives are notified. Another American, a financial analyst who audited contracts in Iraq, was killed Sunday in the zone, the embassy and relatives said earlier this week.
Another U.S. official said that personnel — who usually sleep two to a trailer on the embassy grounds — are now sleeping inside the former Saddam palace where their offices are located. "There are cots everywhere," the U.S. official said. "People are scouting out free couches."
The official — who has been through other attacks — described the recent barrages as "qualitatively different." "There is a sense of hunkering down for a sustained period of time," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security restrictions.
The last sustained attacks on the Green Zone were in July when extremists unleashed a barrage of more than a dozen mortars or rockets, killing at least three people — including an American — and wounding 18.
What is Public Diplomacy?
MountainRunner has a good piece on what Public Diplomacy is (and isn't).
What is Public Diplomacy?
By MountainRunner
Not too long ago, Marc Lynch and I had a back and forth on the utility and purposes of Smith-Mundt, a law that today is used not to give America a voice in a global informational struggle -- the purpose for which it was passed -- but to impose artificial constraints that is unique among our peers and our adversaries.
That discussion included an interesting (and incredible) statement that public diplomacy was not about advocacy. I completely disagree, as I wrote in Understanding the Purpose of Public Diplomacy. Crucial to understanding the purpose of public diplomacy is understanding what it is.
So, What is Public Diplomacy?
While the term itself originated as an alternative to "propaganda," by 1965, when Edmund Gullion coined it, public diplomacy was already well on its way to be something much different than propaganda. The definition of public diplomacy back then is virtually indistinguishable from what today we call information operations, propaganda, or even psychological operations.
More recent American definitions of public diplomacy, when they exist, tend to ignore the purpose of the communication, leaving open the possibility that all political communications of a state (or non-state actor) is public diplomacy simply by virtue of the target, a foreign public. That may have been implied by Gullion, but it isn't what it is today and very much why the term "strategic communications" has come into fashion.
If public diplomacy was simply the conveyance of information to influence a group of people, it would be indistinguishable from information operations or even psychological operations. So what is it?
In a timely post on the State Department's blog, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy captured a key element of what differentiates public diplomacy:
"Hmm... Now what exactly is public diplomacy"? That is the question I am often asked.
I describe public diplomacy as the art of communicating a country's policies, values and culture to other peoples. It is an attempt to explain why we have decided on certain measures, and beyond that, to explain who we are.
Public diplomacy is many things, but what differentiates it from information operations, the now traditional definition of propaganda, and political warfare, is an effort to create an understanding based on conveying a point of view.
You can read the entire post here.
What is Public Diplomacy?
By MountainRunner
Not too long ago, Marc Lynch and I had a back and forth on the utility and purposes of Smith-Mundt, a law that today is used not to give America a voice in a global informational struggle -- the purpose for which it was passed -- but to impose artificial constraints that is unique among our peers and our adversaries.
That discussion included an interesting (and incredible) statement that public diplomacy was not about advocacy. I completely disagree, as I wrote in Understanding the Purpose of Public Diplomacy. Crucial to understanding the purpose of public diplomacy is understanding what it is.
So, What is Public Diplomacy?
While the term itself originated as an alternative to "propaganda," by 1965, when Edmund Gullion coined it, public diplomacy was already well on its way to be something much different than propaganda. The definition of public diplomacy back then is virtually indistinguishable from what today we call information operations, propaganda, or even psychological operations.
More recent American definitions of public diplomacy, when they exist, tend to ignore the purpose of the communication, leaving open the possibility that all political communications of a state (or non-state actor) is public diplomacy simply by virtue of the target, a foreign public. That may have been implied by Gullion, but it isn't what it is today and very much why the term "strategic communications" has come into fashion.
If public diplomacy was simply the conveyance of information to influence a group of people, it would be indistinguishable from information operations or even psychological operations. So what is it?
In a timely post on the State Department's blog, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy captured a key element of what differentiates public diplomacy:
"Hmm... Now what exactly is public diplomacy"? That is the question I am often asked.
I describe public diplomacy as the art of communicating a country's policies, values and culture to other peoples. It is an attempt to explain why we have decided on certain measures, and beyond that, to explain who we are.
Public diplomacy is many things, but what differentiates it from information operations, the now traditional definition of propaganda, and political warfare, is an effort to create an understanding based on conveying a point of view.
You can read the entire post here.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Cookie Pusher, Where Are You?
I have recently been unable to access one of blogs I really like, The Cookie Pusher. When you click on the link, it takes you to a WordPress logon page, but his blog apparently does not recognize my WordPress logon.
So Cookie Pusher, if you are still out there, I'd love to hear from you. You have had some really interesting insights.
So Cookie Pusher, if you are still out there, I'd love to hear from you. You have had some really interesting insights.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
FT: State grapples with vacancies in midlevel Foreign Service posts
This piece was in yesterday's Federal Times.
State grapples with vacancies in midlevel Foreign Service posts
By STEPHEN LOSEY
About one-fifth of the State Department’s midlevel Foreign Service positions are vacant, and the department says it needs Congress to approve long-overdue funding to fill them.
A State Department official said the agency is coping with the vacancies by leaving open positions at lower-priority embassies and consulates, and temporarily assigning some employees jobs that are above their paygrades. About 19 percent of Foreign Service employees today are “stretching” to do jobs above their paygrade, said Linda Taglialatela, State’s deputy assistant secretary for human resources.
“We’re meeting the highest of our priorities,” Taglialatela said. “But it’s not sustainable over the long run.”
The roots of the problem lie in the Clinton-era downsizing of the federal work force, which kept State from hiring many young people who would today be midcareer Foreign Service officers, said Taglialatela and American Foreign Service Association President John Naland. But the problem has been compounded by Congress’ refusal to fund Foreign Service hiring since 2004.
“Clinton’s peace dividend got taken out of State, and the hiring stopped,” Naland said.
State now has about 3,000 midcareer Foreign Service generalist officers — grades FS-03 to FS-01 — and needs about 3,800. Midcareer officers usually have between five and 20 years of experience, and earn $62,600 to $124,000 annually. FS-06 entry-level officers get $36,700.
State is asking Congress for enough money to hire about 700 Foreign Service officers in fiscal 2009. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing hard for additional hiring as she briefs lawmakers on the proposed budget, Taglialatela said.
The problem is most severe in the ranks of State’s Foreign Service generalists — the officers who handle consular duties, meet with foreign citizens and organizations, manage embassies and consulates, or do other nonspecialized jobs.
The most important embassies — such as those in Baghdad, Iraq, and Kabul, Afghanistan — are either fully or nearly fully staffed, Taglialatela said. And embassies and consulates in more peaceful or less strategic countries are suffering as a result of the staffing needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It takes away from other locations, but we’re managing it,” Taglialatela said.
While State is trying to keep most of the unfilled Foreign Service posts at its Washington headquarters, it is leaving some positions abroad unfilled and dividing up duties among officers with similar skills there. Sometimes the spouses of Foreign Service employees pitch in to help, with a little training from State. Some unnecessary positions have been eliminated.
But those tactics can’t work for more than two tours, Taglialatela said.
“Foreign Service people are very dedicated, and many people work very long hours. But at some point, we’re going to have to find the resources to staff those jobs,” she said.
When State relies on employees working above their paygrades, embassies and consulates aren’t running at peak efficiency, she said.
“Most of them are very bright and capable, and they can do 70 percent of the job,” Taglialatela said. “But they need more supervision, they need more time, more direction; and they can’t hit the ground running like a more senior person would be able to.”
One midlevel Foreign Service officer, who asked not to be identified, said he has had to do up to four jobs at once in his stints abroad.
“You’re just trying to stick fingers in cracks to make sure things don’t fall apart,” the officer said. “You’re not necessarily trying to produce the best product. You’re making sure there are no catastrophes.”
State has to rely increasingly on foreign employees, who cannot always be completely trusted, the officer said.
“There’s always a local agenda,” he said.
And with Foreign Service officers stretched to the limit, the officer said, embassies and consulates can’t always give American citizens the help and attention they need. He and other officers he knows have become discouraged and thought about leaving for the private sector, he said.
“We do this because we want to serve and enjoy the lifestyle of being overseas,” the officer said. “But at some point, you don’t feel like you’re having the most positive impact you could, or are unable to reverse negative trends in foreign policy. Then you start to question your own personal reasons.”
And although State was able to find enough Foreign Service officers to fill its Baghdad embassy this year without ordering officers to serve, Naland worries that today’s shortages will affect next year’s staffing.
“The State Department doesn’t have the bench strength to staff the ever-growing embassy in Iraq,” Naland said. “This fall, we’re going to face the same need again.”
State grapples with vacancies in midlevel Foreign Service posts
By STEPHEN LOSEY
About one-fifth of the State Department’s midlevel Foreign Service positions are vacant, and the department says it needs Congress to approve long-overdue funding to fill them.
A State Department official said the agency is coping with the vacancies by leaving open positions at lower-priority embassies and consulates, and temporarily assigning some employees jobs that are above their paygrades. About 19 percent of Foreign Service employees today are “stretching” to do jobs above their paygrade, said Linda Taglialatela, State’s deputy assistant secretary for human resources.
“We’re meeting the highest of our priorities,” Taglialatela said. “But it’s not sustainable over the long run.”
The roots of the problem lie in the Clinton-era downsizing of the federal work force, which kept State from hiring many young people who would today be midcareer Foreign Service officers, said Taglialatela and American Foreign Service Association President John Naland. But the problem has been compounded by Congress’ refusal to fund Foreign Service hiring since 2004.
“Clinton’s peace dividend got taken out of State, and the hiring stopped,” Naland said.
State now has about 3,000 midcareer Foreign Service generalist officers — grades FS-03 to FS-01 — and needs about 3,800. Midcareer officers usually have between five and 20 years of experience, and earn $62,600 to $124,000 annually. FS-06 entry-level officers get $36,700.
State is asking Congress for enough money to hire about 700 Foreign Service officers in fiscal 2009. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing hard for additional hiring as she briefs lawmakers on the proposed budget, Taglialatela said.
The problem is most severe in the ranks of State’s Foreign Service generalists — the officers who handle consular duties, meet with foreign citizens and organizations, manage embassies and consulates, or do other nonspecialized jobs.
The most important embassies — such as those in Baghdad, Iraq, and Kabul, Afghanistan — are either fully or nearly fully staffed, Taglialatela said. And embassies and consulates in more peaceful or less strategic countries are suffering as a result of the staffing needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It takes away from other locations, but we’re managing it,” Taglialatela said.
While State is trying to keep most of the unfilled Foreign Service posts at its Washington headquarters, it is leaving some positions abroad unfilled and dividing up duties among officers with similar skills there. Sometimes the spouses of Foreign Service employees pitch in to help, with a little training from State. Some unnecessary positions have been eliminated.
But those tactics can’t work for more than two tours, Taglialatela said.
“Foreign Service people are very dedicated, and many people work very long hours. But at some point, we’re going to have to find the resources to staff those jobs,” she said.
When State relies on employees working above their paygrades, embassies and consulates aren’t running at peak efficiency, she said.
“Most of them are very bright and capable, and they can do 70 percent of the job,” Taglialatela said. “But they need more supervision, they need more time, more direction; and they can’t hit the ground running like a more senior person would be able to.”
One midlevel Foreign Service officer, who asked not to be identified, said he has had to do up to four jobs at once in his stints abroad.
“You’re just trying to stick fingers in cracks to make sure things don’t fall apart,” the officer said. “You’re not necessarily trying to produce the best product. You’re making sure there are no catastrophes.”
State has to rely increasingly on foreign employees, who cannot always be completely trusted, the officer said.
“There’s always a local agenda,” he said.
And with Foreign Service officers stretched to the limit, the officer said, embassies and consulates can’t always give American citizens the help and attention they need. He and other officers he knows have become discouraged and thought about leaving for the private sector, he said.
“We do this because we want to serve and enjoy the lifestyle of being overseas,” the officer said. “But at some point, you don’t feel like you’re having the most positive impact you could, or are unable to reverse negative trends in foreign policy. Then you start to question your own personal reasons.”
And although State was able to find enough Foreign Service officers to fill its Baghdad embassy this year without ordering officers to serve, Naland worries that today’s shortages will affect next year’s staffing.
“The State Department doesn’t have the bench strength to staff the ever-growing embassy in Iraq,” Naland said. “This fall, we’re going to face the same need again.”
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
President Bush Visits Department of State
President Bush visited the State Department yesterday and had some really nice things to say about the Department and those of us who serve, particularly those who have served in Iraq. The entire speech is copied below.
Disappointing, though, was a local news channels selective use of quotes from the speech as part of their coverage of the 4,000th person killed in Iraq, to make it seem like the speech was addressing only the sacrifices of the military. I find it frustrating that Americans still clearly do not recognize the contributions of the State Department both in the war and throughout the world, no doubt in large part because of the media's selective coverage of the issues.
President Bush Visits Department of State
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for your hospitality. I just had a very interesting dialogue on how to strengthen the State Department's capacity to bring freedom and peace around the world, and how to make sure the State Department works collaboratively with the Defense Department, as we deal with some of the more difficult areas, and really take advantage of some of the great opportunities that we're faced with.
And so I really want to thank you, Madam Secretary, and I thank the folks who work in this building. Our citizens have really no idea how competent, courageous and successful the people here who work at the State Department are -- I do. After my -- now my eighth year as President, I've gotten to know the people in the State Department well, and I'm impressed, and so should our citizens.
Obviously we want to expand the reach of the State Department by increasing the size and its efficiencies, and to make sure that there's interoperability. And along these lines, of course, I'm fully aware that folks who have worked in the State Department lost their lives and -- in Iraq, along with our military folks. And on this day of reflection, I offer our deepest sympathies to their families. I hope their families know that the citizens pray for their comfort and strength, whether they were the first one who lost their life in Iraq or recently lost their lives in Iraq -- that every life is precious in our sight.
And I guess my one thought I wanted to leave with those who still hurt is that one day people will look back at this moment in history and say, thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come; that I have vowed in the past, and I will vow so long as I'm President, to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain, that, in fact, there is a outcome that will merit the sacrifice that civilian and military alike have made; that our strategy going forward will be aimed at making sure that we achieve victory and, therefore, America becomes more secure and these young democracies survive, and peace more likely as we head into the 21st century.
So, Madam Secretary, I'm honored to be here, and I thank you very much for your hard work and your dedication.
Thank you all.
Disappointing, though, was a local news channels selective use of quotes from the speech as part of their coverage of the 4,000th person killed in Iraq, to make it seem like the speech was addressing only the sacrifices of the military. I find it frustrating that Americans still clearly do not recognize the contributions of the State Department both in the war and throughout the world, no doubt in large part because of the media's selective coverage of the issues.
President Bush Visits Department of State
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for your hospitality. I just had a very interesting dialogue on how to strengthen the State Department's capacity to bring freedom and peace around the world, and how to make sure the State Department works collaboratively with the Defense Department, as we deal with some of the more difficult areas, and really take advantage of some of the great opportunities that we're faced with.
And so I really want to thank you, Madam Secretary, and I thank the folks who work in this building. Our citizens have really no idea how competent, courageous and successful the people here who work at the State Department are -- I do. After my -- now my eighth year as President, I've gotten to know the people in the State Department well, and I'm impressed, and so should our citizens.
Obviously we want to expand the reach of the State Department by increasing the size and its efficiencies, and to make sure that there's interoperability. And along these lines, of course, I'm fully aware that folks who have worked in the State Department lost their lives and -- in Iraq, along with our military folks. And on this day of reflection, I offer our deepest sympathies to their families. I hope their families know that the citizens pray for their comfort and strength, whether they were the first one who lost their life in Iraq or recently lost their lives in Iraq -- that every life is precious in our sight.
And I guess my one thought I wanted to leave with those who still hurt is that one day people will look back at this moment in history and say, thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come; that I have vowed in the past, and I will vow so long as I'm President, to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain, that, in fact, there is a outcome that will merit the sacrifice that civilian and military alike have made; that our strategy going forward will be aimed at making sure that we achieve victory and, therefore, America becomes more secure and these young democracies survive, and peace more likely as we head into the 21st century.
So, Madam Secretary, I'm honored to be here, and I thank you very much for your hard work and your dedication.
Thank you all.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Ambassador Guest talks about the Human Rights Report
Queerty has an interview with Ambassador Michael Guest about the human rights report and the Department's documentation of anti-gay human rights abuses abroad. (Yes, I think the pun in the title was intended.)
Straight Talk With Michael Guest
Michael Guest stepped into the spotlight again this week. The former Romanian ambassador, who resigned last year to protest the State Department’s gay inequality, held a press conference to highlight the Department’s documentation of anti-gay human rights abuses.
Despite the Department’s look at these abuses, that report, says Guest and his friends at the LGBT Foreign Policy Project, does nothing to address the stark, often violent reality of gay living abroad.
Our editor sat down with Guest yesterday to discuss the report, as well as the State Department’s queer inaction, how to approach anti-gay nations and why even a flawed democracy matters.
Andrew Belonsky: So, let’s start this week’s press conference on the treatment of gay people abroad.
Michael Guest: Yes, well we talked about how the State Department’s report on LGBT rights has become more complete over time – over the past ten or twelve years.
AB: And what’s the significance of that – that the report has become more comprehensive?
MG: Well, it’s important to have an accurate understanding of what the picture of discrimination is against LGBT citizens overseas. It’s the starting point for action against legal discrimination, as well as a range of abuses that are being carried out. We need a clear picture of what’s happening in these countries in order to come up with an action plan.
AB: Obviously the State Department is well aware of abuses that are happening around the world, but do you think the State Department is really working to nullify abuses?
MG: First of all, without a human rights report, it’s not clear to me that the State Department or we as citizens would even know of the human rights abuses happening overseas. It was only in 1995 that LGBT issues were even put into the report. But, no, I don’t believe that the State Department is doing enough. More needs to be done. That starts with having a clear or more precise record – in other words, if you look at the report, some countries don’t mention LGBT issues at all. There needs to be greater clarity than what there is now and we’ll be taking that case to the State Department. Beyond the clarity, we want a record to show what the embassies are doing to counter the discrimination. We want a clear record of embassies expressing concern about reports of abuses – physical abuses against LGBT citizens. There’s a whole range of actions that need to take place and it’s not clear from the reports whether they are taking place.
AB: What’s the motivation for the State Department’s inaction? Or, rather, why are they not motivated to act?
MG: Well, the report is an onerous thing to compile, I know that, and very often embassies have twenty things they have to do in that day, so it’s easy for attention to the issue to slide. I think over time, since Jimmy Carter’s presidency, there has been a slide in our focus on human rights. Do I think it’s deliberate? No, not always. It may depend on the individuals, but I think in general there are just other priorities that have crept in and my organization believes this issue should be one of our highest priorities in keeping with what America stands for: freedom, equality, diversity and respect.
AB: What steps would you suggest – obviously the United States’ politics and economic system are intrinsically linked to anti-gay nations. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Do you think that the State Department is worried about ruffling its allies’ feathers?
MG: I think the State Department doesn’t think about the issue actively: human rights abuses and particularly human rights abuses against the LGBT community. In the day-to-day world that embassies operate in – if you’re sitting in country that’s an ally in the war on terror, or you’re sitting in a country where we have developmental needs – certain projects take priority. That’s why we felt compelled to hold a press conference. These kinds of abuses are, in our view, quite serious. They need to be taken seriously by our government, which has pledged to represent the values and principles of this country. We understand that these issues don’t get treated in a void – every bilateral relationship is complex and involve many different factors, but you have to stand on principle. You have to have a consistent manner of raising concerns about the violation of individuals in countries, even countries that are our friends. You’ve got be able to speak clearly and consistently with them – and that’s really what friends should do with each other.
AB: What if a state department official steps into a situation – they approach a government and say, “We know you have laws against homosexuality. This needs to change.” And then the leaders say, “It’s not a part of our culture. It’s a Western thing.” How can diplomacy bridge such a stark ideological divide on something that’s as contentious as sexuality?
MG: There are international norms that have been negotiated over time in places like the United Nations that pertain to LGBT rights. I guess my response to any government that said, “That’s your culture” would to remind them of conventions that in all likelihood they have signed. Also, I would make clear that no matter what you think about homosexuality, there’s still an obligation to ensure that they are protected against being killed and they shouldn’t be abused because they’re homosexual. There are norms that should be followed irrespective of one country’s background: norms that are international. And that’s what human rights are all about.
AB: Back to America, with regard to your resignation – what’s your view of American democracy? Obviously democracy is one man, one vote, but take that a little further and think of liberal democracy, all men are created equal. Has liberal democracy really been a success in the United States?
MG: Well, let me look at it in a slightly different way. I’ve spent 26 years of my life – well, more than that – studying foreign policy and then 26 years being an active diplomat posted to a number of countries. I’ve seen how democracy is not perfect in any country, just like individuals are not perfect. Everybody has their own beauty spots and flaws, their strengths and weaknesses. And the same is true about democracies. I think America has a more vibrant democracy than so many countries that I have seen, but it’s not perfect. What I love about American democracy – and why I’m involved in this project – is that when Americans see something unjust, they get involved. Not everybody, but you have the capacity to get involved. There are a lot of organizations in civil society that exist to call attention to issues.
I love the fact that in this country that you can debate and push for change and that isn’t the case in a lot of countries around the world. Yes, we have flaws in our system. In fact, I was commenting to someone that there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the State Department puts out this report on human rights violations overseas every year, but no one really does an assessment of our own democracy and our own human rights failings.
AB: Definitely.
MG:There’s also irony in the fact that while the State Department’s putting out these reports, it is practicing discriminatory policies in its work place against LGBT employees, which is why I left. But, having left and having then found an organization and raise my voice on Capitol Hill – the issue has now been raised to the Secretary of State by a member of Congress and the Secretary has now responded with one small change in favor of partners of gay and lesbian foreign service employees: to allow the partners to attend the security seminar, but that’s a baby step. It does, however, show that you can have an impact by getting involved.
I think we’ve lost a lot of opportunities over the past seven years to use America’s influence for positive good in areas like this: human rights abuse issues. We want to see that attention to principle on the basis of what this country has always stood for. It’s important that the government start standing on principle.
Straight Talk With Michael Guest
Michael Guest stepped into the spotlight again this week. The former Romanian ambassador, who resigned last year to protest the State Department’s gay inequality, held a press conference to highlight the Department’s documentation of anti-gay human rights abuses.
Despite the Department’s look at these abuses, that report, says Guest and his friends at the LGBT Foreign Policy Project, does nothing to address the stark, often violent reality of gay living abroad.
Our editor sat down with Guest yesterday to discuss the report, as well as the State Department’s queer inaction, how to approach anti-gay nations and why even a flawed democracy matters.
Andrew Belonsky: So, let’s start this week’s press conference on the treatment of gay people abroad.
Michael Guest: Yes, well we talked about how the State Department’s report on LGBT rights has become more complete over time – over the past ten or twelve years.
AB: And what’s the significance of that – that the report has become more comprehensive?
MG: Well, it’s important to have an accurate understanding of what the picture of discrimination is against LGBT citizens overseas. It’s the starting point for action against legal discrimination, as well as a range of abuses that are being carried out. We need a clear picture of what’s happening in these countries in order to come up with an action plan.
AB: Obviously the State Department is well aware of abuses that are happening around the world, but do you think the State Department is really working to nullify abuses?
MG: First of all, without a human rights report, it’s not clear to me that the State Department or we as citizens would even know of the human rights abuses happening overseas. It was only in 1995 that LGBT issues were even put into the report. But, no, I don’t believe that the State Department is doing enough. More needs to be done. That starts with having a clear or more precise record – in other words, if you look at the report, some countries don’t mention LGBT issues at all. There needs to be greater clarity than what there is now and we’ll be taking that case to the State Department. Beyond the clarity, we want a record to show what the embassies are doing to counter the discrimination. We want a clear record of embassies expressing concern about reports of abuses – physical abuses against LGBT citizens. There’s a whole range of actions that need to take place and it’s not clear from the reports whether they are taking place.
AB: What’s the motivation for the State Department’s inaction? Or, rather, why are they not motivated to act?
MG: Well, the report is an onerous thing to compile, I know that, and very often embassies have twenty things they have to do in that day, so it’s easy for attention to the issue to slide. I think over time, since Jimmy Carter’s presidency, there has been a slide in our focus on human rights. Do I think it’s deliberate? No, not always. It may depend on the individuals, but I think in general there are just other priorities that have crept in and my organization believes this issue should be one of our highest priorities in keeping with what America stands for: freedom, equality, diversity and respect.
AB: What steps would you suggest – obviously the United States’ politics and economic system are intrinsically linked to anti-gay nations. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Do you think that the State Department is worried about ruffling its allies’ feathers?
MG: I think the State Department doesn’t think about the issue actively: human rights abuses and particularly human rights abuses against the LGBT community. In the day-to-day world that embassies operate in – if you’re sitting in country that’s an ally in the war on terror, or you’re sitting in a country where we have developmental needs – certain projects take priority. That’s why we felt compelled to hold a press conference. These kinds of abuses are, in our view, quite serious. They need to be taken seriously by our government, which has pledged to represent the values and principles of this country. We understand that these issues don’t get treated in a void – every bilateral relationship is complex and involve many different factors, but you have to stand on principle. You have to have a consistent manner of raising concerns about the violation of individuals in countries, even countries that are our friends. You’ve got be able to speak clearly and consistently with them – and that’s really what friends should do with each other.
AB: What if a state department official steps into a situation – they approach a government and say, “We know you have laws against homosexuality. This needs to change.” And then the leaders say, “It’s not a part of our culture. It’s a Western thing.” How can diplomacy bridge such a stark ideological divide on something that’s as contentious as sexuality?
MG: There are international norms that have been negotiated over time in places like the United Nations that pertain to LGBT rights. I guess my response to any government that said, “That’s your culture” would to remind them of conventions that in all likelihood they have signed. Also, I would make clear that no matter what you think about homosexuality, there’s still an obligation to ensure that they are protected against being killed and they shouldn’t be abused because they’re homosexual. There are norms that should be followed irrespective of one country’s background: norms that are international. And that’s what human rights are all about.
AB: Back to America, with regard to your resignation – what’s your view of American democracy? Obviously democracy is one man, one vote, but take that a little further and think of liberal democracy, all men are created equal. Has liberal democracy really been a success in the United States?
MG: Well, let me look at it in a slightly different way. I’ve spent 26 years of my life – well, more than that – studying foreign policy and then 26 years being an active diplomat posted to a number of countries. I’ve seen how democracy is not perfect in any country, just like individuals are not perfect. Everybody has their own beauty spots and flaws, their strengths and weaknesses. And the same is true about democracies. I think America has a more vibrant democracy than so many countries that I have seen, but it’s not perfect. What I love about American democracy – and why I’m involved in this project – is that when Americans see something unjust, they get involved. Not everybody, but you have the capacity to get involved. There are a lot of organizations in civil society that exist to call attention to issues.
I love the fact that in this country that you can debate and push for change and that isn’t the case in a lot of countries around the world. Yes, we have flaws in our system. In fact, I was commenting to someone that there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the State Department puts out this report on human rights violations overseas every year, but no one really does an assessment of our own democracy and our own human rights failings.
AB: Definitely.
MG:There’s also irony in the fact that while the State Department’s putting out these reports, it is practicing discriminatory policies in its work place against LGBT employees, which is why I left. But, having left and having then found an organization and raise my voice on Capitol Hill – the issue has now been raised to the Secretary of State by a member of Congress and the Secretary has now responded with one small change in favor of partners of gay and lesbian foreign service employees: to allow the partners to attend the security seminar, but that’s a baby step. It does, however, show that you can have an impact by getting involved.
I think we’ve lost a lot of opportunities over the past seven years to use America’s influence for positive good in areas like this: human rights abuse issues. We want to see that attention to principle on the basis of what this country has always stood for. It’s important that the government start standing on principle.
Diplopundit on Ambassador Harty's "connection" to the passport flap
Diplopundit also has a good take on the "connection" of Ambassador Harty to the passport flap, including a good explanation of what we, as public servants, can and cannot do in terms of campaigning for elected officials. I have quoted the entire post because it is well worth reading.
The Public Servant and the Internet Beast
Right after the news of the passport breach at the State Department hit the web the night before last, conspiracy aficionados had a field day online. The Huffington Post did a brief news update on its site quoting an MSNBC news item and citing “Mora Hardy” as the person who was in charge of the passport office when the breaches occurred. There was not much on the report; it was approximately 250 words (it’s not online anymore and has now been replaced with this) but it did mention that “Mora Hardy” was am ambassador appointed during the Clinton administration and left readers to draw their own conclusions from what was still breaking news. And that they did, quite unfairly towards a dedicated public servant. Tsk! Tsk! Did not even bother to fact-check her name.
One post alleged that Paraguay where Ambassador Harty was posted from 1997-1999 was a “prestige post” given to political contributors. According to the CIA World Factbook, Paraguay’s economy had rebounded between 2003-2007, but on “a per capita basis, real income has stagnated at 1980 levels and most observers attribute Paraguay's poor economic performance to political uncertainty, corruption, limited progress on structural reform, and deficient infrastructure.” Paraguay is far from Paris, and has a GDP of $4,000 but that’s not really relevant, is it? It is a foreign country that sounds exotic, it must be a prestigious post, never mind that it has a 10% hardship differential and a 10% cost of living allowance bundled with it. Another alleged that Ambassador Harty is a Clinton supporter and implied that she must be involved. After another post indicated that Ambassador Harty had retired in February, still one more poster, alleged that she must have seen this coming, that’s why she quit her job at 49!
I spent some time reading through the online posts and came away with the realization that the regular American public has no idea how the State Department works. I have never seen such ignorance and such great willingness to believe everything so quickly without any supporting facts. I understand that this is the price we pay for the 24/7 barrage of information that comes with technology but isn’t this quite disturbing? Do we think so lowly of our public servants that we cannot afford them the courtesy of waiting until the facts are in before drawing virtual blood? The feeding frenzy reminds me of sharks feeding, really!
Just for clarity - Ambassador Harty was a career Foreign Service Officer; she earned her “stripes” within a very competitive organization through hard work. You can read more information about her career in the State Department here and here.
Her impending retirement was announced in November last year, but her actual retirement did not occur until this past February. She was a career Ambassador, a rank equivalent to a General in the military. She was not only well-respected but also genuinely liked by the people who worked for her.
As for those “prestige” assignments given to political contributors – those are the non-career ambassadors, political appointees nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate. For historical context, I refer to U.S. Diplomacy which states:
“Until passage of the Rogers Act of 1924 all ambassadors (then generally called “ministers”) of the United States were non-career political appointees. However, since the Second World War the great majority of those positions have been filled by career FSOs. In recent years approximately 70% of U.S. ambassadors come from the ranks of the professional Foreign Service, while the other 30% are from the private sector. Nominations of non-career ambassadors are made by the White House. Career officers are nominated by the White House upon recommendation by the Department of State.”
Foreign Service Officers (our diplomats) are commissioned by the President of the United States. Since Ambassador Harty joined the State Department in 1981, she must have been commissioned by President Reagan. She continued her career within the State Department through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2. But there’s nothing odd about that; all our career professional and civil servants continue working for Uncle Sam regardless of which party occupies the White House.
I must also add that Foreign Service Officers like all Federal employees are precluded from engaging in political activities under the Hatch Act. Federal employees may not-
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* hold office in political clubs or parties
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work
The penalties can be a 30-day suspension or removal from office, so folks are extremely careful about that just as we are careful and mindful of all the rules and regulations that govern our lives inside and outside the office. If you are thinking about the Bill Clinton passport flap in 1992, please bear in mind that the culprits then were political appointees not career professionals.
The Public Servant and the Internet Beast
Right after the news of the passport breach at the State Department hit the web the night before last, conspiracy aficionados had a field day online. The Huffington Post did a brief news update on its site quoting an MSNBC news item and citing “Mora Hardy” as the person who was in charge of the passport office when the breaches occurred. There was not much on the report; it was approximately 250 words (it’s not online anymore and has now been replaced with this) but it did mention that “Mora Hardy” was am ambassador appointed during the Clinton administration and left readers to draw their own conclusions from what was still breaking news. And that they did, quite unfairly towards a dedicated public servant. Tsk! Tsk! Did not even bother to fact-check her name.
One post alleged that Paraguay where Ambassador Harty was posted from 1997-1999 was a “prestige post” given to political contributors. According to the CIA World Factbook, Paraguay’s economy had rebounded between 2003-2007, but on “a per capita basis, real income has stagnated at 1980 levels and most observers attribute Paraguay's poor economic performance to political uncertainty, corruption, limited progress on structural reform, and deficient infrastructure.” Paraguay is far from Paris, and has a GDP of $4,000 but that’s not really relevant, is it? It is a foreign country that sounds exotic, it must be a prestigious post, never mind that it has a 10% hardship differential and a 10% cost of living allowance bundled with it. Another alleged that Ambassador Harty is a Clinton supporter and implied that she must be involved. After another post indicated that Ambassador Harty had retired in February, still one more poster, alleged that she must have seen this coming, that’s why she quit her job at 49!
I spent some time reading through the online posts and came away with the realization that the regular American public has no idea how the State Department works. I have never seen such ignorance and such great willingness to believe everything so quickly without any supporting facts. I understand that this is the price we pay for the 24/7 barrage of information that comes with technology but isn’t this quite disturbing? Do we think so lowly of our public servants that we cannot afford them the courtesy of waiting until the facts are in before drawing virtual blood? The feeding frenzy reminds me of sharks feeding, really!
Just for clarity - Ambassador Harty was a career Foreign Service Officer; she earned her “stripes” within a very competitive organization through hard work. You can read more information about her career in the State Department here and here.
Her impending retirement was announced in November last year, but her actual retirement did not occur until this past February. She was a career Ambassador, a rank equivalent to a General in the military. She was not only well-respected but also genuinely liked by the people who worked for her.
As for those “prestige” assignments given to political contributors – those are the non-career ambassadors, political appointees nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate. For historical context, I refer to U.S. Diplomacy which states:
“Until passage of the Rogers Act of 1924 all ambassadors (then generally called “ministers”) of the United States were non-career political appointees. However, since the Second World War the great majority of those positions have been filled by career FSOs. In recent years approximately 70% of U.S. ambassadors come from the ranks of the professional Foreign Service, while the other 30% are from the private sector. Nominations of non-career ambassadors are made by the White House. Career officers are nominated by the White House upon recommendation by the Department of State.”
Foreign Service Officers (our diplomats) are commissioned by the President of the United States. Since Ambassador Harty joined the State Department in 1981, she must have been commissioned by President Reagan. She continued her career within the State Department through the administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2. But there’s nothing odd about that; all our career professional and civil servants continue working for Uncle Sam regardless of which party occupies the White House.
I must also add that Foreign Service Officers like all Federal employees are precluded from engaging in political activities under the Hatch Act. Federal employees may not-
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* hold office in political clubs or parties
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work
The penalties can be a 30-day suspension or removal from office, so folks are extremely careful about that just as we are careful and mindful of all the rules and regulations that govern our lives inside and outside the office. If you are thinking about the Bill Clinton passport flap in 1992, please bear in mind that the culprits then were political appointees not career professionals.
CAA comments on attempts to "smear" Ambassador Harty
Consul-At-Arms commented on my earlier post about attempts to connect Ambassador Harty to this passport nonsense. I am pleased, and not surprised, that he also agrees connecting her to the issue is absurd.
Attempting to "smear" recently-retired A/S Harty as some sort of Clinton machine operative is a dishonest and dishonorable attack on a distinguished American diplomat whose only declared loyalties have been to the United States itself.
Disclaimer: As a consular officer myself, I have been, at great remove, under the supervision of former A/S Harty since the retirement of her predecessor, Career Amb. Ryan, until the end of February of this year when she retired. And in the course of my duties I have met A/S Harty on three-or-four occasions, in three different cities in two different countries.
A/S Harty began her Foreign Service career long before former Pres. Clinton was in office, as evidenced by being at a senior enough rank during his administration that she was appointed an ambassador, even to Paraguay. This is something like assuming everyone promoted to general or admiral during the years of that administration is also a Clintonista of some stripe.
Attempting to "smear" recently-retired A/S Harty as some sort of Clinton machine operative is a dishonest and dishonorable attack on a distinguished American diplomat whose only declared loyalties have been to the United States itself.
Disclaimer: As a consular officer myself, I have been, at great remove, under the supervision of former A/S Harty since the retirement of her predecessor, Career Amb. Ryan, until the end of February of this year when she retired. And in the course of my duties I have met A/S Harty on three-or-four occasions, in three different cities in two different countries.
A/S Harty began her Foreign Service career long before former Pres. Clinton was in office, as evidenced by being at a senior enough rank during his administration that she was appointed an ambassador, even to Paraguay. This is something like assuming everyone promoted to general or admiral during the years of that administration is also a Clintonista of some stripe.
Don't Make Assumptions
The following is from Patterico's Pontifications. He is right that folks should not be assuming anything about this issue. I have pretty good reason to believe at this point that it really is a case of curiousity killed the cat.
Don’t Make Assumptions About the Passport Flap
Regarding the flap over the passports, the Washington Times reports:
The State Department last night said one of the persons responsible for the inappropriate behavior was employed by an information technology firm headed by one of Mr. Obama’s foreign intelligence advisors.
Of course, this doesn’t establish that Obama was behind the snooping — and people are finding tenuous connections between the two firms and each one of the candidates. Just something to keep in mind: we don’t know who’s behind this yet.
Don’t Make Assumptions About the Passport Flap
Regarding the flap over the passports, the Washington Times reports:
The State Department last night said one of the persons responsible for the inappropriate behavior was employed by an information technology firm headed by one of Mr. Obama’s foreign intelligence advisors.
Of course, this doesn’t establish that Obama was behind the snooping — and people are finding tenuous connections between the two firms and each one of the candidates. Just something to keep in mind: we don’t know who’s behind this yet.
The Cost of Currency Fluxuations on U.S. Diplomacy
The Skeptical Bureaucrat has a piece that is A News Story That is NOT About Obama's Passport!! The pay disparity in particular is not a new problem, but the falling dollar has exaccerbated it, and is precisely the reason why I would not bid on any western European posts at this point. I just can't afford it!
A News Story That is NOT About Obama's Passport!!
Let's hear it for The Washington Times! They ran a front page story Saturday about the mundane but very serious matter of unfavorable currency fluctuations and their impact on U.S. embassy operations. The dwindling purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is putting big stress on both facility and personnel costs overseas.
"The State Department is losing millions as a result of the free-falling dollar, forcing its overseas missions to lay off local staff, reduce energy consumption, put facility repairs on hold and cancel travel, officials said ... Several officials said the higher cost of maintaining existing facilities abroad reduces the funds available for renovations and new construction."
I can attest to the truth of that last sentence personally, since I'm grappling right now with an overseas construction project that will soon collapse - leaving about 50 State employees stuck in a highly vulnerable old building that we would love to vacate - unless someone can find a way to increase the project's budget by about one third to compensate our foreign contractor for the disappearing value of his dollar-denominated contract. (Of course, we can sue him if he defaults on his contract, but that won't get the new building finished.)
"Another major expense in foreign currency are the salaries of thousands of local employees at U.S. embassies and consulates. The first officer [interviewed] in Europe said that her salary is now lower than that of her assistant, who is a national of the host country. Still, the officer said that what the assistant makes is "below the salary level [it] should be to be competitive on the local market.”
That U.S.-vs-local salary disparity is not uncommon in the more costly countries, and not just with Foreign Service National employees (locally engaged staff), but also with contract security guards. A few years ago I visited a U.S. Foreign Commercial Service facility in a very expensive northern Italian city where it was pointed out to me that the highest-paid person there wasn't the senior Commercial Officer, but one of the security guards. That guard had a lot of seniority and worked his way up to the top pay grade, which, due to local living costs, was exorbitant by U.S. standards. I remember he was a very distinguished-looking gentleman who commuted to and from home in a custom suit that I'd guess cost in the $2,000 to $4,000 range, and changed into his guard uniform when he got to work.
A News Story That is NOT About Obama's Passport!!
Let's hear it for The Washington Times! They ran a front page story Saturday about the mundane but very serious matter of unfavorable currency fluctuations and their impact on U.S. embassy operations. The dwindling purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is putting big stress on both facility and personnel costs overseas.
"The State Department is losing millions as a result of the free-falling dollar, forcing its overseas missions to lay off local staff, reduce energy consumption, put facility repairs on hold and cancel travel, officials said ... Several officials said the higher cost of maintaining existing facilities abroad reduces the funds available for renovations and new construction."
I can attest to the truth of that last sentence personally, since I'm grappling right now with an overseas construction project that will soon collapse - leaving about 50 State employees stuck in a highly vulnerable old building that we would love to vacate - unless someone can find a way to increase the project's budget by about one third to compensate our foreign contractor for the disappearing value of his dollar-denominated contract. (Of course, we can sue him if he defaults on his contract, but that won't get the new building finished.)
"Another major expense in foreign currency are the salaries of thousands of local employees at U.S. embassies and consulates. The first officer [interviewed] in Europe said that her salary is now lower than that of her assistant, who is a national of the host country. Still, the officer said that what the assistant makes is "below the salary level [it] should be to be competitive on the local market.”
That U.S.-vs-local salary disparity is not uncommon in the more costly countries, and not just with Foreign Service National employees (locally engaged staff), but also with contract security guards. A few years ago I visited a U.S. Foreign Commercial Service facility in a very expensive northern Italian city where it was pointed out to me that the highest-paid person there wasn't the senior Commercial Officer, but one of the security guards. That guard had a lot of seniority and worked his way up to the top pay grade, which, due to local living costs, was exorbitant by U.S. standards. I remember he was a very distinguished-looking gentleman who commuted to and from home in a custom suit that I'd guess cost in the $2,000 to $4,000 range, and changed into his guard uniform when he got to work.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
What Their (And Your) Passport Files Contain
The following is from DIPNOTE, the State Department's official blog. It explains very well what is in the file of any person who has ever applied for a passport (if you never had a passport, then you don't have a passport file).
We received many questions from the press and the public, several on this blog, about the information contained in a person’s passport file.
This entry details exactly what information can be found in a passport file. You may also view a Policy Podcast video featuring Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy that discusses "Passport Data Security." View Video Full Text
Generally, after the State Department issues a passport, all personal documents are returned to the applicant – the only document kept in the Department’s passport file is the passport application. Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports. Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as completed by the applicant.
Download the actual passport application forms at:
Application for U.S. Passport or Registrations
Application for U.S. Passport by Mail
The application form asks for the biographic information needed to determine if the applicant qualifies for a U.S. Passport, including:
* Applicant’s name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, social security number, marital status and mailing address and previous passport number if applicable.
* Applicant’s physical descriptors like height, hair color and eye color.
* Names and place of birth of the applicant’s parents.The application form also asks for optional information that helps us to deliver applications on time, and to contact a citizen in case of an emergency:
* Occupation and employer of the applicant and contact information for the applicant as well as his or her emergency contact. (these have proved invaluable in contacting next of kin when a US citizen dies or needs assistance abroad).
* Travel plans as completed by an applicant on the form would be in the record. (This is valuable in getting the passport to the applicant on time.)
In complex circumstances, for instance if there are grounds to suspect possible fraud or if a person born overseas claims citizenship by virtue of having an American citizen parent, we may need additional evidence to review the applications, and we keep this information in the passport file with the applications.
Passport Kerfuffle
Consul-At-Arms has a good commentary on the Passport Kerfuffle, what it is and what it isn't.
In order to do their jobs, people have to be able to access these systems. They also have to be trained in using the systems. People are a very curious flavor of primate and, naturally enough, the first thing they do, often before they can be warned against doing so, when they're first given access to this system is test it with a name they know. Oops. Their first impulse is to treat the database as a sort of Google, often inputting their own names or those of family-members. This is not nearly as sinister as the former FBI agent with all the terrorist connections who was doing the same thing with the FBI's investigative databases.
"What's truly ironic, again, is that this is yet another instance where the State Dept. is pilloried for being a political tool of the Bush administration, totally in thrall to its neo-con vision of world domination. Right. As if. In virtually the same breath, the Foreign Service usually gets chastised for being insufficiently supportive of the national objectives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What's that noise? Oh, that's my irony-o-meter resetting itself. It does that whenever I pay attention to the news. "
I recommend reading the whole post.
In order to do their jobs, people have to be able to access these systems. They also have to be trained in using the systems. People are a very curious flavor of primate and, naturally enough, the first thing they do, often before they can be warned against doing so, when they're first given access to this system is test it with a name they know. Oops. Their first impulse is to treat the database as a sort of Google, often inputting their own names or those of family-members. This is not nearly as sinister as the former FBI agent with all the terrorist connections who was doing the same thing with the FBI's investigative databases.
"What's truly ironic, again, is that this is yet another instance where the State Dept. is pilloried for being a political tool of the Bush administration, totally in thrall to its neo-con vision of world domination. Right. As if. In virtually the same breath, the Foreign Service usually gets chastised for being insufficiently supportive of the national objectives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What's that noise? Oh, that's my irony-o-meter resetting itself. It does that whenever I pay attention to the news. "
I recommend reading the whole post.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Seriously...
The Huffington Post had a conspiratorial take on the information released today that the passport files of Obama, Clinton and McCain had been breached. Huffington notes that there is a "Clinton connection" to the story in that Ambassador Maura Harty, the recently retired Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs, was Ambassador under Bill Clinton. And Huffington's readers have responded that she should be investigated.
That is really reaching.
The incidents did not happen while she was Ambassador. They did not happen while Bill Clinton was in office. In fact, Hillary's was accessed first, in 2007.
Clearly, accessing the files is wrong. All of us who have undergone consular training know that we are only supposed to access Americans' passport files under certain very specific circumstances.
My suspicion is that there was no malicious intent on the part of the contractors, who have been fired or disciplined. My guess it they accessed the files out of curiousity. No less wrong, but certainly less conspiratorial. But I guess that would be boring to those who are looking for vast right-wing or vast left-wing conspiracies. (Maybe this is a vast centrist-wing conspiracy, since the files of all three top presidential candidates were accessed!)
That is really reaching.
The incidents did not happen while she was Ambassador. They did not happen while Bill Clinton was in office. In fact, Hillary's was accessed first, in 2007.
Clearly, accessing the files is wrong. All of us who have undergone consular training know that we are only supposed to access Americans' passport files under certain very specific circumstances.
My suspicion is that there was no malicious intent on the part of the contractors, who have been fired or disciplined. My guess it they accessed the files out of curiousity. No less wrong, but certainly less conspiratorial. But I guess that would be boring to those who are looking for vast right-wing or vast left-wing conspiracies. (Maybe this is a vast centrist-wing conspiracy, since the files of all three top presidential candidates were accessed!)
State Department urged to address ‘shocking’ violations 120 countries cited for abuse, harassment of gay citizens
This piece is in today's Washington Blade.
State Department urged to address ‘shocking’ violations 120 countries cited for abuse, harassment of gay citizens
By CHRIS JOHNSON
A new advocacy group is calling on the U.S. State Department to address gay rights violations detailed in a recently published report.
The State Department released its annual report March 11. The document, which is thousands of pages long, breaks down the human rights violations in the past year for each country in which they are reported. Included are reports of discrimination and violence against gays overseas.
The new gay rights group, tentatively named the LGBT Foreign Policy Project, is calling for greater action and involvement from the State Department in addressing the gay rights issues mentioned in the report. The group highlighted aspects of the report and called for further action Tuesday at a press briefing in Washington.
Michael Guest, a gay former U.S. Ambassador to Romania who is now a member of the group, said the range of abuse described in the report “is simply shocking.” Guest retired as an ambassador last year in protest because of State Department policies toward the same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.
The report “includes killings, police violence, unwarranted arrest, extortion and a wide array of legal and other forms of societal discrimination,” Guest said.
The State Department identifies at least 37 countries in which gay citizens were assaulted or killed and at least 15 countries where police abuse has been documented.
“Abuses are being committed in countries that are friends and allies of the United States — including some to which the American taxpayer gives substantial amounts of assistance in the form of military or developmental assistance,” Guest said.
James Hormel, former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and the first openly gay person to serve as a U.S. ambassador, also encouraged action on the report.
“We need to renew and reinvigorate our worldwide commitment to human rights and that includes recognizing LGBT rights as human rights,” he said.
The report identifies gay rights violations in about 120 countries.
For countries like Saudi Arabia, where sex between two men is punishable by death or flogging, the report notes extreme hostility toward gays. In October, a court there sentenced two men to 7,000 lashes each for having sex with other men. The police also detained 250 men and subsequently arrested 20 for participating in a suspected gay wedding.
There is less detail for Iran, a country that is also known for its hostility toward gays. The most specific incident of anti-gay activity the report cites is a reformist newspaper in Iran that was shut down after interviewing an alleged gay activist.
The report even finds gay rights violations in Western European countries, which are widely considered to be gay friendly, The incidents of hostility there appear more isolated. In the United Kingdom, gays continue to experience discrimination and violence, despite laws prohibiting such discrimination, the report states. In Germany, a group of actors performing in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” were beaten and hospitalized following their performance, the report cites.
The State Department also notes the extension of gay rights in some places, such as Taiwan. The legislature extended medical and legal protections enjoyed by married couples to straight couples and prohibited employment discrimination.
Scott Long, a member of the LGBT Foreign Policy Project and founding member of the gay program at Human Rights Watch, said that while reporting on gay rights violations overseas is an important start, it’s not enough. Long advocated that U.S. ambassadors interact with gay groups overseas.
“One thing we need again is to know that all embassies, all our ambassadors all our public servants are talking to the people they should be talking to,” he said.
The United States needs to employ “strategic intervention” to provide support to movements and put pressure on governments.
“This means not just putting pressure on our enemies because our enemies are not the ones who listen — it means putting pressure on our friends because they do,” he said.
Long said there have been significant gay rights violations in Jamaica and said the embassy there has taken steps to address those issues.
Guest, noting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned violence against women abroad earlier this month, called on the secretary to “use her voice herself to speak out” on these matters in her talks with other countries.
The former ambassador said he realizes the U.S. government often has to address many issues in other countries besides gay rights, but added, “we think it’s a critically important issue and it certainly needs to be addressed in some fashion.”
Guest said as a U.S. ambassador he “never got a single request” from the State Department “to take this issue seriously.”
The former ambassador said the LGBT Foreign Policy Project plans to present its ideas to David Kramer, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor.
Susan Johnson, senior coordinator for democracy promotion for the State Department’s bureau of democracy, human rights and labor, attended the briefing and said the U.S. government has already taken some measures to address concerns raised by the LGBT Foreign Policy Project.
Last summer, the State Department told all ambassadors to support human rights more actively, she said. Ambassadors should be “speaking out to defend the defenders and … meet with them and do other things that would demonstrate U.S. government support for those activities,” she said. She did not specify that ambassadors were encouraged to meet with gay rights leaders.
Congress also recently passed a law requiring the State Department to produce annually an “advancing freedom and democracy report” that would detail what action the State Departments has taken to follow-up on its human rights reports, Johnson said.
Johnson said later she believed that U.S. ambassadors have the authority to speak with gay rights groups abroad if they wish.
Gays from Kosovo, Iran seek asylum
To demonstrate the human rights abuses against gays abroad, the LGBT Foreign Policy Project featured Korab Zuka at the briefing. Zuka is a refugee from Kosovo who won asylum in the United States.
Zuka, who is gay, fled to the United States after receiving death threats for founding the Center for Social Emancipation, Kosovo’s first organization aimed at promoting gay rights.
“I’m a firm believer that people are born with fundamental rights and one of them is being treated equally regardless of your sexual orientation,” he said.
Zuka founded the Center for Social Emancipation “to create awareness that gay people existed in Kosovo.”
“In Kosovo, there is this belief that [homosexuality] is an international disease and Kosovo people are not affected by it,” he said.
Zuka said even if people come out as gay to their families, they are still expected to get married and have children.
“So basically you have to play the role that you’re straight regardless … no matter how you identify yourself,” he said.
Zuka appeared on a local television show to discuss his organization. He was hidden behind a curtain, his voice was scrambled and his name was not given, but somehow his identity was still divulged, he said.
He received death threats over the phone and through the mail and his car was damaged. Zuka went to the police, but “their response was, ‘Well, if they want to kill you, they’ll just kill you, so we cannot protect you,’” he said.
Then he received a message signed by an Islamic fundamentalist organization stating that his home and family would be bombed if he did not leave Kosovo. That’s when he decided to flee.
The United States granted Zuka asylum Feb. 29. He lives in Washington.
Long said the asylum process should be reformed because many refugees are not as lucky as Zuka. The burden of proof for needing reason to escape should not lie with the defendant, Long said.
Guest more vocal following retirement
Guest said treatment of same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers has become marginally better since he retired.
He commended Rice for allowing same-sex partners to join the spouses of Foreign Service officers in security seminars. But he lamented that same-sex partners may attend such briefings if space is available.
Guest said leaving his position as ambassador has been liberating.
“I can now say what I want and can now be involved with the issues that I really care about rather than the issues that I’m assigned to care about,” he said.
The former ambassador is expecting congressional hearings later this year on a bill that would address issues faced by same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.
State Department urged to address ‘shocking’ violations 120 countries cited for abuse, harassment of gay citizens
By CHRIS JOHNSON
A new advocacy group is calling on the U.S. State Department to address gay rights violations detailed in a recently published report.
The State Department released its annual report March 11. The document, which is thousands of pages long, breaks down the human rights violations in the past year for each country in which they are reported. Included are reports of discrimination and violence against gays overseas.
The new gay rights group, tentatively named the LGBT Foreign Policy Project, is calling for greater action and involvement from the State Department in addressing the gay rights issues mentioned in the report. The group highlighted aspects of the report and called for further action Tuesday at a press briefing in Washington.
Michael Guest, a gay former U.S. Ambassador to Romania who is now a member of the group, said the range of abuse described in the report “is simply shocking.” Guest retired as an ambassador last year in protest because of State Department policies toward the same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.
The report “includes killings, police violence, unwarranted arrest, extortion and a wide array of legal and other forms of societal discrimination,” Guest said.
The State Department identifies at least 37 countries in which gay citizens were assaulted or killed and at least 15 countries where police abuse has been documented.
“Abuses are being committed in countries that are friends and allies of the United States — including some to which the American taxpayer gives substantial amounts of assistance in the form of military or developmental assistance,” Guest said.
James Hormel, former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and the first openly gay person to serve as a U.S. ambassador, also encouraged action on the report.
“We need to renew and reinvigorate our worldwide commitment to human rights and that includes recognizing LGBT rights as human rights,” he said.
The report identifies gay rights violations in about 120 countries.
For countries like Saudi Arabia, where sex between two men is punishable by death or flogging, the report notes extreme hostility toward gays. In October, a court there sentenced two men to 7,000 lashes each for having sex with other men. The police also detained 250 men and subsequently arrested 20 for participating in a suspected gay wedding.
There is less detail for Iran, a country that is also known for its hostility toward gays. The most specific incident of anti-gay activity the report cites is a reformist newspaper in Iran that was shut down after interviewing an alleged gay activist.
The report even finds gay rights violations in Western European countries, which are widely considered to be gay friendly, The incidents of hostility there appear more isolated. In the United Kingdom, gays continue to experience discrimination and violence, despite laws prohibiting such discrimination, the report states. In Germany, a group of actors performing in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” were beaten and hospitalized following their performance, the report cites.
The State Department also notes the extension of gay rights in some places, such as Taiwan. The legislature extended medical and legal protections enjoyed by married couples to straight couples and prohibited employment discrimination.
Scott Long, a member of the LGBT Foreign Policy Project and founding member of the gay program at Human Rights Watch, said that while reporting on gay rights violations overseas is an important start, it’s not enough. Long advocated that U.S. ambassadors interact with gay groups overseas.
“One thing we need again is to know that all embassies, all our ambassadors all our public servants are talking to the people they should be talking to,” he said.
The United States needs to employ “strategic intervention” to provide support to movements and put pressure on governments.
“This means not just putting pressure on our enemies because our enemies are not the ones who listen — it means putting pressure on our friends because they do,” he said.
Long said there have been significant gay rights violations in Jamaica and said the embassy there has taken steps to address those issues.
Guest, noting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned violence against women abroad earlier this month, called on the secretary to “use her voice herself to speak out” on these matters in her talks with other countries.
The former ambassador said he realizes the U.S. government often has to address many issues in other countries besides gay rights, but added, “we think it’s a critically important issue and it certainly needs to be addressed in some fashion.”
Guest said as a U.S. ambassador he “never got a single request” from the State Department “to take this issue seriously.”
The former ambassador said the LGBT Foreign Policy Project plans to present its ideas to David Kramer, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor.
Susan Johnson, senior coordinator for democracy promotion for the State Department’s bureau of democracy, human rights and labor, attended the briefing and said the U.S. government has already taken some measures to address concerns raised by the LGBT Foreign Policy Project.
Last summer, the State Department told all ambassadors to support human rights more actively, she said. Ambassadors should be “speaking out to defend the defenders and … meet with them and do other things that would demonstrate U.S. government support for those activities,” she said. She did not specify that ambassadors were encouraged to meet with gay rights leaders.
Congress also recently passed a law requiring the State Department to produce annually an “advancing freedom and democracy report” that would detail what action the State Departments has taken to follow-up on its human rights reports, Johnson said.
Johnson said later she believed that U.S. ambassadors have the authority to speak with gay rights groups abroad if they wish.
Gays from Kosovo, Iran seek asylum
To demonstrate the human rights abuses against gays abroad, the LGBT Foreign Policy Project featured Korab Zuka at the briefing. Zuka is a refugee from Kosovo who won asylum in the United States.
Zuka, who is gay, fled to the United States after receiving death threats for founding the Center for Social Emancipation, Kosovo’s first organization aimed at promoting gay rights.
“I’m a firm believer that people are born with fundamental rights and one of them is being treated equally regardless of your sexual orientation,” he said.
Zuka founded the Center for Social Emancipation “to create awareness that gay people existed in Kosovo.”
“In Kosovo, there is this belief that [homosexuality] is an international disease and Kosovo people are not affected by it,” he said.
Zuka said even if people come out as gay to their families, they are still expected to get married and have children.
“So basically you have to play the role that you’re straight regardless … no matter how you identify yourself,” he said.
Zuka appeared on a local television show to discuss his organization. He was hidden behind a curtain, his voice was scrambled and his name was not given, but somehow his identity was still divulged, he said.
He received death threats over the phone and through the mail and his car was damaged. Zuka went to the police, but “their response was, ‘Well, if they want to kill you, they’ll just kill you, so we cannot protect you,’” he said.
Then he received a message signed by an Islamic fundamentalist organization stating that his home and family would be bombed if he did not leave Kosovo. That’s when he decided to flee.
The United States granted Zuka asylum Feb. 29. He lives in Washington.
Long said the asylum process should be reformed because many refugees are not as lucky as Zuka. The burden of proof for needing reason to escape should not lie with the defendant, Long said.
Guest more vocal following retirement
Guest said treatment of same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers has become marginally better since he retired.
He commended Rice for allowing same-sex partners to join the spouses of Foreign Service officers in security seminars. But he lamented that same-sex partners may attend such briefings if space is available.
Guest said leaving his position as ambassador has been liberating.
“I can now say what I want and can now be involved with the issues that I really care about rather than the issues that I’m assigned to care about,” he said.
The former ambassador is expecting congressional hearings later this year on a bill that would address issues faced by same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.
Dr. Blair Rudes (1951-2008)
I hope you will all forgive a post that is off topic...Dr. Rudes was an excellent researcher and a friend to the Indian tribes of South Carolina. He will be missed.
Blair A. Rudes (1951-2008)
Dr. Blair A. Rudes, Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, died unexpectedly on March 16, 2008, after spending the afternoon exercising. An internationally known linguist and expert in American Indian languages, Dr. Rudes came to UNC Charlotte as an Assistant Professor in 1999 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2005.
During his career at UNC Charlotte, Dr. Rudes became famous as a “Hollywood linguist.” In 2004, film director Terrence Malick hired Dr. Rudes to work as a consultant and dialect coach for the film The New World, which deals with the founding of Jamestown and the interaction between the Native people and the English settlers. Malick wanted the American Indian characters to speak in their native language, but this language had been extinct for over 200 years. Dr. Rudes drew on his expertise in the history of American Indian languages to revive the Virginia Algonquian language. He then translated the dialog spoken by the Native characters into Virginia Algonquian and coached the actors on how to pronounce their lines in this language. Dr. Rudes’ contributions to this film attracted widespread publicity including a feature story in the New York Times. Impressed with Dr. Rudes’ contributions to The New World, film director Carter Smith hired Dr. Rudes to serve as the Mayan Dialogue Coach for the film The Ruins, which will be released by Dreamworks later in 2008.
As a scholar, Dr. Rudes is best known for writing the Tuscarora-English/English-Tuscarora Dictionary, which the University of Toronto Press published in 1999. He also edited several other books and published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. At the time of his death, he was completing a three-volume work titled The Catawba Language.
In recent years, Dr Rudes received several important honors. In 2006, the Tuscarora Indian Nation honored him for his contributions to preserving the Tuscarora language. In 2007, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a bill honoring Dr. Rudes for his contribution to the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs. Most recently, the State University of New York at Buffalo (where Dr. Rudes received his Ph.D. in 1976) gave him with their Distinguished Alumni Award.
A valued member of the Department of English, Dr. Rudes will be deeply missed by his colleagues and students.
Blair A. Rudes (1951-2008)
Dr. Blair A. Rudes, Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, died unexpectedly on March 16, 2008, after spending the afternoon exercising. An internationally known linguist and expert in American Indian languages, Dr. Rudes came to UNC Charlotte as an Assistant Professor in 1999 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2005.
During his career at UNC Charlotte, Dr. Rudes became famous as a “Hollywood linguist.” In 2004, film director Terrence Malick hired Dr. Rudes to work as a consultant and dialect coach for the film The New World, which deals with the founding of Jamestown and the interaction between the Native people and the English settlers. Malick wanted the American Indian characters to speak in their native language, but this language had been extinct for over 200 years. Dr. Rudes drew on his expertise in the history of American Indian languages to revive the Virginia Algonquian language. He then translated the dialog spoken by the Native characters into Virginia Algonquian and coached the actors on how to pronounce their lines in this language. Dr. Rudes’ contributions to this film attracted widespread publicity including a feature story in the New York Times. Impressed with Dr. Rudes’ contributions to The New World, film director Carter Smith hired Dr. Rudes to serve as the Mayan Dialogue Coach for the film The Ruins, which will be released by Dreamworks later in 2008.
As a scholar, Dr. Rudes is best known for writing the Tuscarora-English/English-Tuscarora Dictionary, which the University of Toronto Press published in 1999. He also edited several other books and published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. At the time of his death, he was completing a three-volume work titled The Catawba Language.
In recent years, Dr Rudes received several important honors. In 2006, the Tuscarora Indian Nation honored him for his contributions to preserving the Tuscarora language. In 2007, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a bill honoring Dr. Rudes for his contribution to the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs. Most recently, the State University of New York at Buffalo (where Dr. Rudes received his Ph.D. in 1976) gave him with their Distinguished Alumni Award.
A valued member of the Department of English, Dr. Rudes will be deeply missed by his colleagues and students.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Robert Beecroft to be Ambassador to Jordan
The following was announced today by the White House:
The President intends to nominate Robert Beecroft, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Mr. Beecroft, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State. Prior to this, he served as Special Assistant to former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Earlier in his career, he served as an International Relations Officer in the Office of Northern Gulf Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Mr. Beecroft received his bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University and his JD from University of California, Berkeley.
It always makes me happy when career members of the Foreign Service are named Ambassador. I suppose much like every boy and girl grows up thinking they could be President, every Foreign Service Officer (or most anyway...none of us are really hear because we are unambitious) secretly hopes to be an Ambassador someday. And when those of our own make it, we have a little hope. Even me. Even though it is very, very unlikely. Ambassador Digger? Hmmm.
The President intends to nominate Robert Beecroft, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Mr. Beecroft, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State. Prior to this, he served as Special Assistant to former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Earlier in his career, he served as an International Relations Officer in the Office of Northern Gulf Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Mr. Beecroft received his bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University and his JD from University of California, Berkeley.
It always makes me happy when career members of the Foreign Service are named Ambassador. I suppose much like every boy and girl grows up thinking they could be President, every Foreign Service Officer (or most anyway...none of us are really hear because we are unambitious) secretly hopes to be an Ambassador someday. And when those of our own make it, we have a little hope. Even me. Even though it is very, very unlikely. Ambassador Digger? Hmmm.
Your rights don't travel with you
Diplopundit had another good post yesterday on the non-portability of American rights.
Non-Portability of American Rights
In the November 2007 issue of Fast Company, Jonathan Green wrote “Nightmare in Boomtown,” an article that I think should be part of the reading fare for Americans intending to do business abroad. This piece is about Mark Siedenfeld, a married rabbi who originally went to Russia in 1991, became a telecom executive drawn to the post-Soviet boom, had a business partner murdered in broad daylight in Moscow, then went through a 19-month trudge through the post-Soviet justice system, including 11 months in a Siberian prison, and an extradition to Kazakhstan (where he was eventually declared not guilty for charges of embezzlement).
This is a cautionary tale, for sure. But there is also the misconception about the U.S. Government’s influence when something like this happens abroad. The article mentioned that Siedenfeld’s supporters (unnamed in the article) “had been stunned by the apparent reluctance of U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway to help an American citizen in distress. The ambassador had met with the Kazakh general prosecutor, but nothing had come of it. Beyond that, he sent Seidenfeld a few magazines and some energy bars in prison.” In another part of the article, it says “As the months passed after his arrest, Siedenfeld came to the creeping realization that he’d been hung out to dry. The State Department had done next to nothing to get him sprung, despite pleas for help to the consulate.”
The notion that the U.S. Government by virtue of its power and influence can “sprung” anybody from a foreign jail is quite absurd. Let’s put this simply – let’s say we have a Kazakh national languishing in a Detroit jail for embezzlement (or it could be any other national, or any other crime, take your pick). How would you feel, if the Kazakh Ambassador to the U.S. demands that our Attorney General sprung this individual from our jail? Can you imagine the uproar that would make? From experience, more than a few of our nationals do expect American Ambassadors or American Consuls to spring them out of jail. Not only that, some Americans also expect that the U.S. Marines would come to extract them when they get into trouble overseas. Would you expect Kazakhtan’s military to send in their Marines to extract their Kazakh national from our jail? Absolutely not!
[...]
I must add here that I have seen consular officers bring dinners to incarcerated Americans during Thanksgiving. ... our Embassies do not have money to pay for these basic necessities, and most foreign jails barely have money to feed their prisoners, much less provide these necessities. In any case, it is possible that Mr. Siedenberg’s energy bars were bought with EMDA [Emergency Medical/Dietary Assistance] funds, or were funded from contributions from American businesses operating in the area (I am speculating here) but it is also a good possibility that they came out of Ambassador Ordway or some nameless Consul’s personal funds.
Digger comments:
I can't tell you how many times in Jerusalem officers took up collections to get someone a meal or a hotel room. So many Americans really do think that they get special rights overseas because they are American, regardless of the crime they committed. And don't even get me started on the folks who have read one too many Tom Clancy novels!
Here’s the lowdown -- if you intend to do business abroad, be sure to conduct due diligence before diving head on and have a risk mitigation plan in place. Yeah, yeah, yeah, these can be a hassle but these hassles are minor compared to the prospect of navigating the justice system overseas, if you tumble. Take to heart what the State Department says about your American rights … “The rights an American enjoys in this country (the United States of America) do not travel abroad. Each country is sovereign and its laws apply to everyone who enters regardless of nationality. The U.S. government cannot get Americans released from foreign jails. However, a U.S. consul will insist on prompt access to an arrested American, provide a list of attorneys, and provide information on the host country’s legal system, offer to contact the arrested American’s family or friends, visit on a regular basis, protest mistreatment, monitor jail conditions, provide dietary supplements, if needed, and keep the State Department informed.
You can read more here.
In short, your rights as an American citizen are non-portable; you cannot take them with you. When push comes to shove, you can proclaim, "I am an American," as loudly as you can but - when you are overseas, you are fully subject to the laws of your host country and at the mercy of a foreign justice system that may have little or no resemblance to our own.
You can read the entire post here.
Non-Portability of American Rights
In the November 2007 issue of Fast Company, Jonathan Green wrote “Nightmare in Boomtown,” an article that I think should be part of the reading fare for Americans intending to do business abroad. This piece is about Mark Siedenfeld, a married rabbi who originally went to Russia in 1991, became a telecom executive drawn to the post-Soviet boom, had a business partner murdered in broad daylight in Moscow, then went through a 19-month trudge through the post-Soviet justice system, including 11 months in a Siberian prison, and an extradition to Kazakhstan (where he was eventually declared not guilty for charges of embezzlement).
This is a cautionary tale, for sure. But there is also the misconception about the U.S. Government’s influence when something like this happens abroad. The article mentioned that Siedenfeld’s supporters (unnamed in the article) “had been stunned by the apparent reluctance of U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan John Ordway to help an American citizen in distress. The ambassador had met with the Kazakh general prosecutor, but nothing had come of it. Beyond that, he sent Seidenfeld a few magazines and some energy bars in prison.” In another part of the article, it says “As the months passed after his arrest, Siedenfeld came to the creeping realization that he’d been hung out to dry. The State Department had done next to nothing to get him sprung, despite pleas for help to the consulate.”
The notion that the U.S. Government by virtue of its power and influence can “sprung” anybody from a foreign jail is quite absurd. Let’s put this simply – let’s say we have a Kazakh national languishing in a Detroit jail for embezzlement (or it could be any other national, or any other crime, take your pick). How would you feel, if the Kazakh Ambassador to the U.S. demands that our Attorney General sprung this individual from our jail? Can you imagine the uproar that would make? From experience, more than a few of our nationals do expect American Ambassadors or American Consuls to spring them out of jail. Not only that, some Americans also expect that the U.S. Marines would come to extract them when they get into trouble overseas. Would you expect Kazakhtan’s military to send in their Marines to extract their Kazakh national from our jail? Absolutely not!
[...]
I must add here that I have seen consular officers bring dinners to incarcerated Americans during Thanksgiving. ... our Embassies do not have money to pay for these basic necessities, and most foreign jails barely have money to feed their prisoners, much less provide these necessities. In any case, it is possible that Mr. Siedenberg’s energy bars were bought with EMDA [Emergency Medical/Dietary Assistance] funds, or were funded from contributions from American businesses operating in the area (I am speculating here) but it is also a good possibility that they came out of Ambassador Ordway or some nameless Consul’s personal funds.
Digger comments:
I can't tell you how many times in Jerusalem officers took up collections to get someone a meal or a hotel room. So many Americans really do think that they get special rights overseas because they are American, regardless of the crime they committed. And don't even get me started on the folks who have read one too many Tom Clancy novels!
Here’s the lowdown -- if you intend to do business abroad, be sure to conduct due diligence before diving head on and have a risk mitigation plan in place. Yeah, yeah, yeah, these can be a hassle but these hassles are minor compared to the prospect of navigating the justice system overseas, if you tumble. Take to heart what the State Department says about your American rights … “The rights an American enjoys in this country (the United States of America) do not travel abroad. Each country is sovereign and its laws apply to everyone who enters regardless of nationality. The U.S. government cannot get Americans released from foreign jails. However, a U.S. consul will insist on prompt access to an arrested American, provide a list of attorneys, and provide information on the host country’s legal system, offer to contact the arrested American’s family or friends, visit on a regular basis, protest mistreatment, monitor jail conditions, provide dietary supplements, if needed, and keep the State Department informed.
You can read more here.
In short, your rights as an American citizen are non-portable; you cannot take them with you. When push comes to shove, you can proclaim, "I am an American," as loudly as you can but - when you are overseas, you are fully subject to the laws of your host country and at the mercy of a foreign justice system that may have little or no resemblance to our own.
You can read the entire post here.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Diplopundit's Realities of Diplomatic Life
This post from Diplopundit was so true I wanted to share some of it. You can read the entire post here.
Realities of Diplomatic Life
Reality #1: Going to lunch could cost an arm or a leg, or one snuffed light bulb, seriously.
I woke up last Sunday to news of another bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan. The initial reports indicate that some U.S. Embassy staffers were also wounded in the attack. The Luna Caprese restaurant where the bombing occurred is a well-known haunt for expatriates, notably diplomats, journalists, and aid agency officials according to reports.
I felt like I was holding my breath for hours until I heard later reports specifying a total of 12 people wounded - none life-threatening (the wounded included four FBI agents and an embassy staffer). This is one thing that folks back home do not always understand about life in the Foreign Service – that one could lose a limb or one’s life by simply going out to lunch or dinner while overseas. Sure, the same thing could happen in the U.S. just by driving a car but really - no one has yet been blown away while eating a Vegetable and Swiss Frittata.
In the Foreign Service, this is a dark cloud that is never too far away from our thoughts. I go through my normal day like a normal person back home, of course – go to work, send the kids to school, go grocery shopping, meet our contacts and friends, but all the while with fingers crossed - that today would be a good day, and our loved ones would return home, safe from harm. A bit dramatic you think? Perhaps, but no matter how you hash it, official Americans are moving targets whether they are in Prague or Amman. Lawrence Foley was shot as he walked to his car outside his home in Jordan. In 2006, David Foy died in a suicide car bomb attack outside the US consulate in Karachi.
Digger comments:
I held my breath too...I have a good friend serving there. Thankfully, she is safe and thankfully none of the wounds to our folks weren't life-threatening. But these attacks are a reality of our lives even as Americans forget them within days. Foley and Foy were killed only because they were there serving. Foley was shot because he was an "easy" American target, not because of anything he in particular had done. He just represented us. And Foy had the misfortune of pulling into the parking lot at the consulate at the same time as the suicide bomber. Again, he wasn't a specific target...Americans serving our country in the Foreign Service were the target.
Each of us carries these people with us. Each bombing at an embassy or consulate is personal, and every person killed there, whether American or Foreign Service National (locally hired staff) is the loss of a family member. We join knowing these are the risks, but we join anyway because we love our country and feel strongly the call to serve. I don't think most Americans here at home know that.
Reality #2: Paranoia can grow like a weed – you learn to tend it
I can get paranoid at times, true, but it pays to have a healthy sense of paranoia when there are people who are trying to get us wherever and whenever they can. Most folks I know in the FS take their security seriously but we also learn to make adjustments to balance the security needs with living a “normal” life overseas; because I know that if I don’t, this weed can quickly grow wild. The Green Zone can be as real as the one in Iraq, or as real as any fortified house in the mind.
Digger comments:
A little paranoia is a good thing...especially overseas. We all know at the very least that our host government is likely watching us. I have a co-worker who served in Vietnam. They knew their apartments were bugged, and each year a birthday gift or cake would show up in the apartment at the appropriate time. On his second year, no birthday cake. So he said loudly, "I can't believe the apartment forgot my birthday. It remembers everyone else's birthday!" And within five minutes, there was a knock at the door and a Vietnamese man with a birthday cake, smiling and apologizing for being late.
The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Belarusian Foreign Ministry had summoned U.S. Charge d'Affaires Jonathan Moore to convey a "strong advice of the Belarusian side to cut the number of the U.S. Embassy personnel."
...I hope this is nothing more than posturing (after all the U.S. Ambassador has already gone back to DC for consultations) but if the Belarusian Government insists on this personnel cut, this could spiral into a tit for tat, with a reduction of the Belarusian Embassy presence in Washington, D.C. And caught in the midst of this are diplomatic families on both sides that could get separated, children pulled out of schools, jobs left at short notices, etc. etc. An unpopular policy, a slight, a row – it could be as huge an issue as an elephant or as tiny as an ant, we can still become pawns in a diplomatic game – such is life in the diplomatic corp ... I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm just saying ...
And I agree, one thousand percent.
Realities of Diplomatic Life
Reality #1: Going to lunch could cost an arm or a leg, or one snuffed light bulb, seriously.
I woke up last Sunday to news of another bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan. The initial reports indicate that some U.S. Embassy staffers were also wounded in the attack. The Luna Caprese restaurant where the bombing occurred is a well-known haunt for expatriates, notably diplomats, journalists, and aid agency officials according to reports.
I felt like I was holding my breath for hours until I heard later reports specifying a total of 12 people wounded - none life-threatening (the wounded included four FBI agents and an embassy staffer). This is one thing that folks back home do not always understand about life in the Foreign Service – that one could lose a limb or one’s life by simply going out to lunch or dinner while overseas. Sure, the same thing could happen in the U.S. just by driving a car but really - no one has yet been blown away while eating a Vegetable and Swiss Frittata.
In the Foreign Service, this is a dark cloud that is never too far away from our thoughts. I go through my normal day like a normal person back home, of course – go to work, send the kids to school, go grocery shopping, meet our contacts and friends, but all the while with fingers crossed - that today would be a good day, and our loved ones would return home, safe from harm. A bit dramatic you think? Perhaps, but no matter how you hash it, official Americans are moving targets whether they are in Prague or Amman. Lawrence Foley was shot as he walked to his car outside his home in Jordan. In 2006, David Foy died in a suicide car bomb attack outside the US consulate in Karachi.
Digger comments:
I held my breath too...I have a good friend serving there. Thankfully, she is safe and thankfully none of the wounds to our folks weren't life-threatening. But these attacks are a reality of our lives even as Americans forget them within days. Foley and Foy were killed only because they were there serving. Foley was shot because he was an "easy" American target, not because of anything he in particular had done. He just represented us. And Foy had the misfortune of pulling into the parking lot at the consulate at the same time as the suicide bomber. Again, he wasn't a specific target...Americans serving our country in the Foreign Service were the target.
Each of us carries these people with us. Each bombing at an embassy or consulate is personal, and every person killed there, whether American or Foreign Service National (locally hired staff) is the loss of a family member. We join knowing these are the risks, but we join anyway because we love our country and feel strongly the call to serve. I don't think most Americans here at home know that.
Reality #2: Paranoia can grow like a weed – you learn to tend it
I can get paranoid at times, true, but it pays to have a healthy sense of paranoia when there are people who are trying to get us wherever and whenever they can. Most folks I know in the FS take their security seriously but we also learn to make adjustments to balance the security needs with living a “normal” life overseas; because I know that if I don’t, this weed can quickly grow wild. The Green Zone can be as real as the one in Iraq, or as real as any fortified house in the mind.
Digger comments:
A little paranoia is a good thing...especially overseas. We all know at the very least that our host government is likely watching us. I have a co-worker who served in Vietnam. They knew their apartments were bugged, and each year a birthday gift or cake would show up in the apartment at the appropriate time. On his second year, no birthday cake. So he said loudly, "I can't believe the apartment forgot my birthday. It remembers everyone else's birthday!" And within five minutes, there was a knock at the door and a Vietnamese man with a birthday cake, smiling and apologizing for being late.
But in all seriousness, you are forced overseas to adjust to things Americans back home never consider. I came to accept that random gunfire was likely coming from Palestinians celebrating a wedding...unless it came from the checkpoint near my house, in which case it likely came from an Israeli soldier. And he wasn't celebrating. My take-away from there is a discomfort when helicopters fly overhead. In Jerusalem, that meant that the Israelis were looking for a suicide bomber. Groups of young men unnerve me too, a leftover from being robbed at knife point there, but that could happen anywhere. The difference is having to deal with a law enforcement system that does not share your language, and may not share your laws and values. Thank God for our Foreign Service Nationals, or it would have been unbearable.
Reality #3: We’d like to think we’re in the driver’s seat, we’re notThe Associated Press reported yesterday that the Belarusian Foreign Ministry had summoned U.S. Charge d'Affaires Jonathan Moore to convey a "strong advice of the Belarusian side to cut the number of the U.S. Embassy personnel."
...I hope this is nothing more than posturing (after all the U.S. Ambassador has already gone back to DC for consultations) but if the Belarusian Government insists on this personnel cut, this could spiral into a tit for tat, with a reduction of the Belarusian Embassy presence in Washington, D.C. And caught in the midst of this are diplomatic families on both sides that could get separated, children pulled out of schools, jobs left at short notices, etc. etc. An unpopular policy, a slight, a row – it could be as huge an issue as an elephant or as tiny as an ant, we can still become pawns in a diplomatic game – such is life in the diplomatic corp ... I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm just saying ...
And I agree, one thousand percent.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service
The following letter from Joe Solmonese was sent out in an email to members of the Human Rights Campaign and was posted on Political Wrinkles.
Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service
Michael Guest, a well-respected and committed public servant, had risen to a top position in the Foreign Service. The first openly gay American to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an overseas Ambassador, Guest left his prestigious post – and the career he loved – because of the State Department's second-class treatment of his partner.
Our nation has lost countless talented public servants like Michael because it doesn't give their same-sex partners equal benefits and protections.
But there's a bill in Congress that would help our government catch up to the private sector – and make sure GLBT Americans can serve their country proudly, at home and abroad.
Click here to tell Congress to pass the bill that would give equal benefits to its employees' domestic partners. Take Action: Partnership benefits NOW for GLBT public servants!
For Michael Guest, it wasn't just the basic indignities, like the government's insistence that he and his partner pack for Romania in separate suitcases. The discrimination he experienced extended to graver matters: even in the immediate wake of 9/11, Guest's partner was unable to receive security training (to know how to recognize a terrorist threat or intelligence trap). Nor was he entitled to evacuation in the event of hostilities.
Upon his retirement from the Foreign Service in December, Michael lamented being forced to choose between his family and service to his country. "That anyone should have to make that choice," he said, "is a stain on...[our] leadership and a shame for this institution and our country."
Erasing that stain would be both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Nearly 10,000 private companies, including more than half of the Fortune 500, offer benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Because they know that it helps them compete for the most talented and qualified employees.
The business community gets it; why doesn't our government?
Tell your elected leaders that patriotic GLBT Americans demand no more for their families than the basic benefits and protections afforded to different-sex spouses.
Send a strong message to your lawmakers to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. Your Members of Congress are federal employees too. Ask them if it would be fair if their families couldn't get basic benefits and protections.
Congress will respond once there is a groundswell of support. So spread the word. Tell your friends about this critically important bill, and ask them to join you in the fight for domestic partnership rights.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
Anti-GLBT bias is driving good people from public service
Michael Guest, a well-respected and committed public servant, had risen to a top position in the Foreign Service. The first openly gay American to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an overseas Ambassador, Guest left his prestigious post – and the career he loved – because of the State Department's second-class treatment of his partner.
Our nation has lost countless talented public servants like Michael because it doesn't give their same-sex partners equal benefits and protections.
But there's a bill in Congress that would help our government catch up to the private sector – and make sure GLBT Americans can serve their country proudly, at home and abroad.
Click here to tell Congress to pass the bill that would give equal benefits to its employees' domestic partners. Take Action: Partnership benefits NOW for GLBT public servants!
For Michael Guest, it wasn't just the basic indignities, like the government's insistence that he and his partner pack for Romania in separate suitcases. The discrimination he experienced extended to graver matters: even in the immediate wake of 9/11, Guest's partner was unable to receive security training (to know how to recognize a terrorist threat or intelligence trap). Nor was he entitled to evacuation in the event of hostilities.
Upon his retirement from the Foreign Service in December, Michael lamented being forced to choose between his family and service to his country. "That anyone should have to make that choice," he said, "is a stain on...[our] leadership and a shame for this institution and our country."
Erasing that stain would be both the right thing and the smart thing to do. Nearly 10,000 private companies, including more than half of the Fortune 500, offer benefits to their employees' domestic partners. Because they know that it helps them compete for the most talented and qualified employees.
The business community gets it; why doesn't our government?
Tell your elected leaders that patriotic GLBT Americans demand no more for their families than the basic benefits and protections afforded to different-sex spouses.
Send a strong message to your lawmakers to support and co-sponsor the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. Your Members of Congress are federal employees too. Ask them if it would be fair if their families couldn't get basic benefits and protections.
Congress will respond once there is a groundswell of support. So spread the word. Tell your friends about this critically important bill, and ask them to join you in the fight for domestic partnership rights.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
Monday, March 17, 2008
More on the Islamabad Blast
American Team A Possible Target In Saturday Attack
By Candace Rondeaux and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Foreign Service
ISLAMABAD — Four FBI agents were among 12 people wounded in a weekend bomb blast at a popular Italian restaurant in Pakistan’s capital, U.S. law enforcement officials said Sunday.
The attack Saturday occurred on the garden patio of Luna Caprese, a restaurant popular with foreigners in a busy, upscale section of Islamabad. The explosion killed a Turkish woman and injured several other people, including another American.
The four FBI agents who were wounded included a legal attache, an assistant legal attache and an agency supervisor, according to one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record. The job title of the fourth agent could not be determined. None of the injuries was life-threatening, the official said, although at least one agent was sent to London to undergo reconstructive surgery.
News of the four wounded FBI agents was first reported by CNN.
The cause of the blast at the restaurant remains under investigation. But sources in Pakistan familiar with the inquiry said a seven-member FBI team tasked with investigating bombings in the city of Lahore was in Islamabad at the time of the attack on Luna Caprese. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing, said the four agents might have been specifically targeted.
The U.S.-led task force was called in to assist with an investigation into two coordinated bombings Tuesday in Lahore. At least 28 people were killed and more than 170 injured in an attack at the headquarters of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency. Minutes after that blast, suicide bombers struck a home in a residential area, killing three people.
The bombing at the Federal Investigation Agency was particularly devastating and caused portions of the agency’s multi-story building to collapse. The agency is responsible for cases involving illegal immigration and smuggling, but is also the base for an FBI-trained counterterrorism unit.
The FBI has collaborated with its Pakistani counterpart on several occasions in recent years. In 2006, officials with the Pakistani agency announced plans for the FBI to train 100 Pakistani recruits in counterterrorism tactics. In 2002, the FBI assisted Pakistani authorities with the investigation of a suicide bombing at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi that killed 12 people and injured 50.
By Candace Rondeaux and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Foreign Service
ISLAMABAD — Four FBI agents were among 12 people wounded in a weekend bomb blast at a popular Italian restaurant in Pakistan’s capital, U.S. law enforcement officials said Sunday.
The attack Saturday occurred on the garden patio of Luna Caprese, a restaurant popular with foreigners in a busy, upscale section of Islamabad. The explosion killed a Turkish woman and injured several other people, including another American.
The four FBI agents who were wounded included a legal attache, an assistant legal attache and an agency supervisor, according to one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record. The job title of the fourth agent could not be determined. None of the injuries was life-threatening, the official said, although at least one agent was sent to London to undergo reconstructive surgery.
News of the four wounded FBI agents was first reported by CNN.
The cause of the blast at the restaurant remains under investigation. But sources in Pakistan familiar with the inquiry said a seven-member FBI team tasked with investigating bombings in the city of Lahore was in Islamabad at the time of the attack on Luna Caprese. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing, said the four agents might have been specifically targeted.
The U.S.-led task force was called in to assist with an investigation into two coordinated bombings Tuesday in Lahore. At least 28 people were killed and more than 170 injured in an attack at the headquarters of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency. Minutes after that blast, suicide bombers struck a home in a residential area, killing three people.
The bombing at the Federal Investigation Agency was particularly devastating and caused portions of the agency’s multi-story building to collapse. The agency is responsible for cases involving illegal immigration and smuggling, but is also the base for an FBI-trained counterterrorism unit.
The FBI has collaborated with its Pakistani counterpart on several occasions in recent years. In 2006, officials with the Pakistani agency announced plans for the FBI to train 100 Pakistani recruits in counterterrorism tactics. In 2002, the FBI assisted Pakistani authorities with the investigation of a suicide bombing at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi that killed 12 people and injured 50.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Embassy personnel among injured in Islamabad blast
The FS is an incredibly small world. I have a friend in Islamabad, and have still not heard whether she is among the wounded from the Embassy. Please keep all the injured and their families in your thoughts.
Pakistan on alert as blast targets foreigners
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's capital was on high alert Sunday and embassies reviewed security measures after a bomb struck an Italian restaurant crowded with foreigners, killing a Turkish aid worker and wounding at least 12 other people.
U.S. and British embassy personnel were wounded in what appeared to be the first attack targeting foreigners in a recent wave of violence in Pakistan, which has been battling al-Qaida- and Taliban-linked militants.
The Saturday attack also came at a politically sensitive time -- parliament is due to convene Monday, bringing to power foes of U.S.-allied President Pervez Musharraf.
A warden notice posted on the U.S. embassy's Web site late Saturday urged Americans "to avoid areas where Westerners are known to congregate and to maintain a low profile," also noting that "American citizens should stay alert, be aware of their surroundings, reduce travel to a minimum, and act self-defensively at all times."
U.S. policy prohibits families of American diplomats from accompanying them on assignment in Pakistan, but most other countries allow it. U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Kay Mayfield could not comment on whether the U.S. was taking measures such as sending home nonessential employees. But, Mayfield said, "Embassies are reviewing their security practices and the guidance they give to their employees."
Concrete barriers lined streets Sunday in the upscale neighborhood around the Luna Caprese restaurant, a popular spot for expatriates in Islamabad. A dozen policemen stood guard outside the two-story villa in what was thought to be a secure neighborhood where diplomats and government officials live.
Police stepped up vehicle checks throughout the capital, a senior police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media.
Officials said the bomb was planted in the restaurant's garden, which was crowded with diners, or thrown over the wall. The restaurant had a single private security guard at its entrance, but none along its perimeter.
The Foreign Ministry said Sunday the dead Turkish woman worked for a foreign aid group. A list of victims was posted in the reception of an Islamabad hospital. Five U.S. citizens were listed as undergoing surgery. One Japanese citizen, one Canadian, one Briton and three Pakistanis also were wounded.
"There were U.S. Embassy personnel among the injured. They are receiving medical treatment and their families are being notified," Mayfield said. She was unable to confirm the number of personnel wounded and their nationalities.
The British Foreign Office reported that a staff member from the British High Commission had been "lightly injured" in the blast. The man was being treated in a hospital, the office said.
Japan's Kyodo News agency said two of its journalists were injured, including the outgoing Islamabad bureau chief. One was hospitalized with a broken jaw and the other had light injuries.
Zahid Janjua, a student at the city's International Islamic University, was dining at a nearby restaurant and helped bring victims to waiting ambulances, staining his clothes with their blood.
"It was chaos. Broken tables and chairs lay scattered across the lawn. There were eight or nine people lying injured and crying for help," he said.
The blast rang out across downtown Islamabad around 8:45 p.m. local time Saturday. Fire engines and police raced to the scene, which was littered with blood and debris. A man's shoe lay in a pile of rubble.
Saturday's attack was the first in Pakistan's quiet capital in several months, and the first targeting foreigners here in more than a year. In January 2007, a security guard was killed and seven people injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a Marriott hotel near parliament.
The deadliest attack on expatriates in recent years was in 2002, when five people were killed, including two Americans, when suspected Islamic militants set off grenades at a church in Islamabad's heavily guarded diplomatic enclave.
With extremist attacks overall on the rise, a growing number of Pakistanis are questioning Musharraf's approach to countering al-Qaida and the Taliban. His opponents say punitive military action has only fueled the violence.
The winning parties in last month's parliamentary elections have pledged to form a new counterterrorism strategy when they form a new coalition government next week.
Pakistan on alert as blast targets foreigners
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's capital was on high alert Sunday and embassies reviewed security measures after a bomb struck an Italian restaurant crowded with foreigners, killing a Turkish aid worker and wounding at least 12 other people.
U.S. and British embassy personnel were wounded in what appeared to be the first attack targeting foreigners in a recent wave of violence in Pakistan, which has been battling al-Qaida- and Taliban-linked militants.
The Saturday attack also came at a politically sensitive time -- parliament is due to convene Monday, bringing to power foes of U.S.-allied President Pervez Musharraf.
A warden notice posted on the U.S. embassy's Web site late Saturday urged Americans "to avoid areas where Westerners are known to congregate and to maintain a low profile," also noting that "American citizens should stay alert, be aware of their surroundings, reduce travel to a minimum, and act self-defensively at all times."
U.S. policy prohibits families of American diplomats from accompanying them on assignment in Pakistan, but most other countries allow it. U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Kay Mayfield could not comment on whether the U.S. was taking measures such as sending home nonessential employees. But, Mayfield said, "Embassies are reviewing their security practices and the guidance they give to their employees."
Concrete barriers lined streets Sunday in the upscale neighborhood around the Luna Caprese restaurant, a popular spot for expatriates in Islamabad. A dozen policemen stood guard outside the two-story villa in what was thought to be a secure neighborhood where diplomats and government officials live.
Police stepped up vehicle checks throughout the capital, a senior police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media.
Officials said the bomb was planted in the restaurant's garden, which was crowded with diners, or thrown over the wall. The restaurant had a single private security guard at its entrance, but none along its perimeter.
The Foreign Ministry said Sunday the dead Turkish woman worked for a foreign aid group. A list of victims was posted in the reception of an Islamabad hospital. Five U.S. citizens were listed as undergoing surgery. One Japanese citizen, one Canadian, one Briton and three Pakistanis also were wounded.
"There were U.S. Embassy personnel among the injured. They are receiving medical treatment and their families are being notified," Mayfield said. She was unable to confirm the number of personnel wounded and their nationalities.
The British Foreign Office reported that a staff member from the British High Commission had been "lightly injured" in the blast. The man was being treated in a hospital, the office said.
Japan's Kyodo News agency said two of its journalists were injured, including the outgoing Islamabad bureau chief. One was hospitalized with a broken jaw and the other had light injuries.
Zahid Janjua, a student at the city's International Islamic University, was dining at a nearby restaurant and helped bring victims to waiting ambulances, staining his clothes with their blood.
"It was chaos. Broken tables and chairs lay scattered across the lawn. There were eight or nine people lying injured and crying for help," he said.
The blast rang out across downtown Islamabad around 8:45 p.m. local time Saturday. Fire engines and police raced to the scene, which was littered with blood and debris. A man's shoe lay in a pile of rubble.
Saturday's attack was the first in Pakistan's quiet capital in several months, and the first targeting foreigners here in more than a year. In January 2007, a security guard was killed and seven people injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a Marriott hotel near parliament.
The deadliest attack on expatriates in recent years was in 2002, when five people were killed, including two Americans, when suspected Islamic militants set off grenades at a church in Islamabad's heavily guarded diplomatic enclave.
With extremist attacks overall on the rise, a growing number of Pakistanis are questioning Musharraf's approach to countering al-Qaida and the Taliban. His opponents say punitive military action has only fueled the violence.
The winning parties in last month's parliamentary elections have pledged to form a new counterterrorism strategy when they form a new coalition government next week.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
$4.1 billion that we need
This piece was in yesterday's Washington Note:
Smart Power Vote Coming Tomorrow in Senate
In its infinite wisdom, the Senate Budget Committee slashed $4.1 billion from President Bush's proposed International Affairs budget.
International Affairs, which includes our diplomacy, development and international organization expenses, comprises just over 1.2% of our total federal budget and 6% of our national security spending. It accounts for almost all of our global non-military footprint.
Even with full funding at the level of the President's request, we're facing a crisis with peacekeeping. Our current debts are being absorbed by troop contributing countries like India, Pakistan, Kenya, and Bangladesh, but they won't continue to absorb the debt forever. That means critical missions will be crippled. And President Bush, even with his high request for International Affairs funding generally, has proposed a dollar amount for peacekeeping contributions that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman has called "absurdly low." That's because the Office of Management and Budget has decided each year to make across-the-board cuts in this area despite our aggressive diplomacy in the UN Security Council to establish and expand peace operations where they are needed.
The military is our hammer and our current budget priorities reflect our view that all of the global challenges we face are nails. Believe it or not, much of the pushback against this view is coming from the Pentagon. Bob Gates has become refreshingly outspoken on the subject:
"Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year's budget for the Department of Defense -- not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion - less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.
"Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other departments and institutions.
"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. Secretary Rice addressed this need in a speech at Georgetown University nearly two years ago. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.
"Now, I am well aware that having a sitting Secretary of Defense travel halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of other agencies might fit into the category of "man bites dog" - or for some back in the Pentagon, "blasphemy." It is certainly not an easy sell politically. And don't get me wrong, I'll be asking for yet more money for Defense next year.
"Still, I hear all the time from the senior leadership of our Armed Forces about how important these civilian capabilities are. In fact, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was Chief of Naval Operations, he once said he'd hand a part of his budget to the State Department "in a heartbeat," assuming it was spent in the right place."
The amendment to restore the $4.1 billion will be proposed tomorrow by Sens. Biden and Lugar. But let's be clear: I wrote about this last year and will probably say something again next year. This amendment is a minor adjustment, not the radical recalibration that is required.
Digger comments: I hope the amendment to restore the $4.1 billion was added and I hope it is approved. The need for the support of soft power is greater now than it has perhaps ever been.
Smart Power Vote Coming Tomorrow in Senate
In its infinite wisdom, the Senate Budget Committee slashed $4.1 billion from President Bush's proposed International Affairs budget.
International Affairs, which includes our diplomacy, development and international organization expenses, comprises just over 1.2% of our total federal budget and 6% of our national security spending. It accounts for almost all of our global non-military footprint.
Even with full funding at the level of the President's request, we're facing a crisis with peacekeeping. Our current debts are being absorbed by troop contributing countries like India, Pakistan, Kenya, and Bangladesh, but they won't continue to absorb the debt forever. That means critical missions will be crippled. And President Bush, even with his high request for International Affairs funding generally, has proposed a dollar amount for peacekeeping contributions that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman has called "absurdly low." That's because the Office of Management and Budget has decided each year to make across-the-board cuts in this area despite our aggressive diplomacy in the UN Security Council to establish and expand peace operations where they are needed.
The military is our hammer and our current budget priorities reflect our view that all of the global challenges we face are nails. Believe it or not, much of the pushback against this view is coming from the Pentagon. Bob Gates has become refreshingly outspoken on the subject:
"Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. Consider that this year's budget for the Department of Defense -- not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion - less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.
"Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods. Nonetheless, we use this benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense. We lack a similar benchmark for other departments and institutions.
"What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. Secretary Rice addressed this need in a speech at Georgetown University nearly two years ago. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.
"Now, I am well aware that having a sitting Secretary of Defense travel halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of other agencies might fit into the category of "man bites dog" - or for some back in the Pentagon, "blasphemy." It is certainly not an easy sell politically. And don't get me wrong, I'll be asking for yet more money for Defense next year.
"Still, I hear all the time from the senior leadership of our Armed Forces about how important these civilian capabilities are. In fact, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was Chief of Naval Operations, he once said he'd hand a part of his budget to the State Department "in a heartbeat," assuming it was spent in the right place."
The amendment to restore the $4.1 billion will be proposed tomorrow by Sens. Biden and Lugar. But let's be clear: I wrote about this last year and will probably say something again next year. This amendment is a minor adjustment, not the radical recalibration that is required.
Digger comments: I hope the amendment to restore the $4.1 billion was added and I hope it is approved. The need for the support of soft power is greater now than it has perhaps ever been.
Maura Harty wins Thomas Jefferson Award
American Citizens Abroad (ACA) announced that Maura Harty, former Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs who recently retired, and Michael Parmly, Chief of Mission in Cuba are this year's winners of the ACA Thomas Jefferson Award. This award honors State Department employees who have given exemplary service to American citizens residing abroad. ACA serves US citizens living outside of the United States on subjects such as taxation, citizenship, voting, Medicare, Social Security, education and many more. Congrats to both, but especially to Ambassador Harty, who I have mentioned my fondness for before in this blog.
American Citizens Abroad Announces the Winners of the 2008 Thomas Jefferson Award
American Citizens Abroad (ACA), a Geneva-based organization serving the interests of overseas Americans all over the world, announced today the winners of the 2008 Thomas Jefferson Award. This distinction honors State Department employees who have given exemplary service to American citizens residing abroad.
The 2008 winners are Maura Harty, former Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, and Michael Parmly, Chief of Mission in Cuba.
Maura Harty was a member of the Foreign Service from 1981 to 2008. A graduate of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, she served the State Department in many challenging positions, both in Washington and abroad - in Mexico, Grenada, Columbia, Spain, Lithuania. Her final overseas assignment was as U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay.
Maura became the Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs on November 21, 2002, after having served as the Executive Secretary of the Department of State. She stepped down from her Consular Affairs position in February 2008.
Americans overseas are especially grateful to Maura Harty for her dedicated efforts on their behalf while Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, where she created the office of Children's Issues, and during her most recent position as the head of the U.S. Consular Service. Her aid in working to resolve a wide range of problems specific to individual Americans abroad and her willingness to meet and discuss with representatives of the American overseas community how to improve the relations between the overseas Americans and the U.S. Government are greatly appreciated.
Michael E. Parmly, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, is currently serving as Chief of Mission-Designate for the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Cuba.
He earned a degree in International Relations and Latin American Studies at St. Joseph's College in Philadelphia and was a Peace Corps volunteer in Bucaramanga, Colombia, prior to receiving his Masters of Arts of Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Michael has been a Foreign Service Officer since 1977, working in Morocco, Spain, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, France and Afghanistan. He has also served on the faculty of the National War College as Professor of National Security Studies, specializing in post-conflict situations. From August to October, 2004, he served as Senior Advisor to Ambassador Khalilzad for the Afghan Presidential elections. In Washington he has served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and later as Acting Assistant Secretary.
American Citizens Abroad salutes Michael Parmly's exemplary and dedicated service to his country, including aspects of his work which have impacted positively on local overseas American communities.
ACA takes great pride in giving this award to both Maura and Michael and wishes them much success in the future.
ACA is a non-partisan, non-profit association of US citizens living outside of the United States. Founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1978, it now has members on six continents. ACA works to address and correct a wide range of anomalies and inequities in US laws and regulations that affect US citizens residing overseas. These include trying to eliminate unfair double taxation, improve the citizenship rights of children, strengthen voting rights, and bring about direct representation for the overseas American community in the U.S. Congress. ACA works to promote a positive image of the United States and of overseas U.S. citizens, and stresses the latter's important contributions to the prosperity, security and the reputation of America. ACA recently published a new anthology of stories about life in the private sector abroad entitled: "So Far Yet So Near".
ACA launched the Thomas Jefferson Award in 1993 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, America's first Secretary of State and third President. Jefferson, who lived outside the new republic for a number of years, helped to secure its independence and promote its political, economic and national security interests. As he was in many ways the quintessential Overseas American, in the private sector and while serving his country, this is why the ACA award carries his name.
Previous winners of the Thomas Jefferson Award were serving in the Cameroon, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Uruguay, the Caribbean and Washington DC. Their strong and meritorious commitment, creativity and enthusiasm have greatly helped to inspire, promote and protect the interests of the 4 million strong overseas American community.
American Citizens Abroad Announces the Winners of the 2008 Thomas Jefferson Award
American Citizens Abroad (ACA), a Geneva-based organization serving the interests of overseas Americans all over the world, announced today the winners of the 2008 Thomas Jefferson Award. This distinction honors State Department employees who have given exemplary service to American citizens residing abroad.
The 2008 winners are Maura Harty, former Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, and Michael Parmly, Chief of Mission in Cuba.
Maura Harty was a member of the Foreign Service from 1981 to 2008. A graduate of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, she served the State Department in many challenging positions, both in Washington and abroad - in Mexico, Grenada, Columbia, Spain, Lithuania. Her final overseas assignment was as U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay.
Maura became the Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs on November 21, 2002, after having served as the Executive Secretary of the Department of State. She stepped down from her Consular Affairs position in February 2008.
Americans overseas are especially grateful to Maura Harty for her dedicated efforts on their behalf while Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, where she created the office of Children's Issues, and during her most recent position as the head of the U.S. Consular Service. Her aid in working to resolve a wide range of problems specific to individual Americans abroad and her willingness to meet and discuss with representatives of the American overseas community how to improve the relations between the overseas Americans and the U.S. Government are greatly appreciated.
Michael E. Parmly, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, is currently serving as Chief of Mission-Designate for the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Cuba.
He earned a degree in International Relations and Latin American Studies at St. Joseph's College in Philadelphia and was a Peace Corps volunteer in Bucaramanga, Colombia, prior to receiving his Masters of Arts of Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Michael has been a Foreign Service Officer since 1977, working in Morocco, Spain, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, France and Afghanistan. He has also served on the faculty of the National War College as Professor of National Security Studies, specializing in post-conflict situations. From August to October, 2004, he served as Senior Advisor to Ambassador Khalilzad for the Afghan Presidential elections. In Washington he has served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and later as Acting Assistant Secretary.
American Citizens Abroad salutes Michael Parmly's exemplary and dedicated service to his country, including aspects of his work which have impacted positively on local overseas American communities.
ACA takes great pride in giving this award to both Maura and Michael and wishes them much success in the future.
ACA is a non-partisan, non-profit association of US citizens living outside of the United States. Founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1978, it now has members on six continents. ACA works to address and correct a wide range of anomalies and inequities in US laws and regulations that affect US citizens residing overseas. These include trying to eliminate unfair double taxation, improve the citizenship rights of children, strengthen voting rights, and bring about direct representation for the overseas American community in the U.S. Congress. ACA works to promote a positive image of the United States and of overseas U.S. citizens, and stresses the latter's important contributions to the prosperity, security and the reputation of America. ACA recently published a new anthology of stories about life in the private sector abroad entitled: "So Far Yet So Near".
ACA launched the Thomas Jefferson Award in 1993 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, America's first Secretary of State and third President. Jefferson, who lived outside the new republic for a number of years, helped to secure its independence and promote its political, economic and national security interests. As he was in many ways the quintessential Overseas American, in the private sector and while serving his country, this is why the ACA award carries his name.
Previous winners of the Thomas Jefferson Award were serving in the Cameroon, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Uruguay, the Caribbean and Washington DC. Their strong and meritorious commitment, creativity and enthusiasm have greatly helped to inspire, promote and protect the interests of the 4 million strong overseas American community.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
U.S. Diplomacy has an interesting piece on foreign-policy decision making being handled more and more by the Department of Defense instead of the State Department.
State Department: Living in the Shadow of the Pentagon
A new report from the Washington, DC-based think tanks the Center for International Policy, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) examines the gradual shift of foreign policy decision-making away from the State Department toward the Defense Department. Cleverly titled “Ready, Aim, Foreign Policy,” it can be downloaded here.
Here’s a snippet:
“…A disturbing transformation of U.S. foreign policy decision-making is quietly underway. The Defense Department’s leadership of foreign military aid and training programs is increasing. The State Department, which once had sole authority to direct and monitor such programs, is ceding control. Moreover, changes to the U.S. military’s geographic command structure could grant the military a greater role in shaping, and becoming the face of, U.S. foreign policy where it counts—on the ground.”
While the authors explain that the Defense Department has been gradually seeping into activities usually reserved for the State Department for the last two decades, three recent examples demonstrate that this trend has been accelarting in recent years:
“First, the Bush Administration endeavored to expand a pilot program, known as “Section 1206,” into a permanent, large-scale, global Defense Department military aid fund with few strings attached.
Second, the State Department, rather than contesting this challenge to its authority, called for a restructuring of foreign aid that would happily cede its management of military aid programs to the Defense Department and reduce congressional oversight.
Third, the U.S. military offered plans to restructure geographic commands to give them a greater role in coordinating U.S. civilian agencies’ activities.” [An example of this restructuring, the Defense Department’s new central command for all of Africa, or AFRICOM, was discussed in an earlier post on this blog].
The report’s authors underscore why it matters that the Defense Department increasingly controls military aid programs: “[These changes] diminish Congressional, public and even diplomatic control over a substantial lever and symbol of foreign policy. They will undercut human rights values in our relations with the rest of the world, and increase the trend toward a projection of U.S. global power based primarily on military might.” The authors go on to cite several examples from their region of expertise, Latin America, but maintain that the changes effect U.S. foreign policy in all regions of the world.
Veteran IPS correspondent Jim Lobe reported summarized the findings of the report and added some inside-the-beltway perspective:
“While the Pentagon, like Gates, clearly understands that Washington faces regional challenges that are not susceptible to military solutions, according to the report, its sheer size compared to the civilian agencies give it an increasingly dominant role in relations with other countries, greater even than that of the resident ambassador who traditionally has been the main coordinator of U.S. policy and representative of the U.S. government in foreign states.
The risk is that the security dimensions of the bilateral relationship are given greater weight, often at the expense of other key considerations, such as human rights, equitable development, and the rule of law, according to the report. In addition, a greater emphasis on sustaining and building up local militaries, which may be repressive and corrupt, may actually prove counter-productive.”
He added that this report is just the latest in a series of studies warning of the increasing militarisation of U.S. foreign policy. This is an extremly important, timely, report. It is essential reading for the next administration for sure, if not all of you interested in foreign policy issues.
Public Radio International’s The World show also broadcast a segment about the report, and interviewed Washington PostSenior Diplomatic Correspondent Karen DeYoung about the significance of this shift.
The report was released the same day that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had breakfast with the members of the House Foreign Relations Committee (HFAC) hearing to discuss what was called “the persistent imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.”
While no transcript of Gates’ remarks is available, Gates has made several public statements about the need for better funding for more “soft power,” civilian activities. In January, at an event at the Center for International Security Studies, Gates said that the challenges posed by the global war on terrorism “cannot be overcome by military means alone and they extend well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or department. They require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power.”
At the hearing, HFAC Acting Chairman Howard Berman observed “Berman observed that “in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department.”
Berman also expressed his concern for the problem: “This committee is examining the issue closely to guard against Defense Department over-reaching into areas traditionally under the authority of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We’re concerned that an overly expansive military role in support of short-term security interests could work to the detriment of long-term foreign policy goals, which would be dangerous and destabilizing. The face of America abroad needs to be, first and foremost, its diplomats. Secretary Gates’ breakfast with us is a welcome first step in making sure this happens.”
This is a good first step. But the following statement Berman made at the breakfast might reveal that in this tug of war of resources between the two Departments, he might be biased toward Defense: ”The gap in civilian capacity has over-burdened the military, which has assumed tasks best performed by civilian experts.”
This is true, but ut seems a little backwards to look at an underfunded State Department and focus on how its deficiencies burden the Defense Department, rather than the practice of diplomacy itself.
State Department: Living in the Shadow of the Pentagon
A new report from the Washington, DC-based think tanks the Center for International Policy, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) examines the gradual shift of foreign policy decision-making away from the State Department toward the Defense Department. Cleverly titled “Ready, Aim, Foreign Policy,” it can be downloaded here.
Here’s a snippet:
“…A disturbing transformation of U.S. foreign policy decision-making is quietly underway. The Defense Department’s leadership of foreign military aid and training programs is increasing. The State Department, which once had sole authority to direct and monitor such programs, is ceding control. Moreover, changes to the U.S. military’s geographic command structure could grant the military a greater role in shaping, and becoming the face of, U.S. foreign policy where it counts—on the ground.”
While the authors explain that the Defense Department has been gradually seeping into activities usually reserved for the State Department for the last two decades, three recent examples demonstrate that this trend has been accelarting in recent years:
“First, the Bush Administration endeavored to expand a pilot program, known as “Section 1206,” into a permanent, large-scale, global Defense Department military aid fund with few strings attached.
Second, the State Department, rather than contesting this challenge to its authority, called for a restructuring of foreign aid that would happily cede its management of military aid programs to the Defense Department and reduce congressional oversight.
Third, the U.S. military offered plans to restructure geographic commands to give them a greater role in coordinating U.S. civilian agencies’ activities.” [An example of this restructuring, the Defense Department’s new central command for all of Africa, or AFRICOM, was discussed in an earlier post on this blog].
The report’s authors underscore why it matters that the Defense Department increasingly controls military aid programs: “[These changes] diminish Congressional, public and even diplomatic control over a substantial lever and symbol of foreign policy. They will undercut human rights values in our relations with the rest of the world, and increase the trend toward a projection of U.S. global power based primarily on military might.” The authors go on to cite several examples from their region of expertise, Latin America, but maintain that the changes effect U.S. foreign policy in all regions of the world.
Veteran IPS correspondent Jim Lobe reported summarized the findings of the report and added some inside-the-beltway perspective:
“While the Pentagon, like Gates, clearly understands that Washington faces regional challenges that are not susceptible to military solutions, according to the report, its sheer size compared to the civilian agencies give it an increasingly dominant role in relations with other countries, greater even than that of the resident ambassador who traditionally has been the main coordinator of U.S. policy and representative of the U.S. government in foreign states.
The risk is that the security dimensions of the bilateral relationship are given greater weight, often at the expense of other key considerations, such as human rights, equitable development, and the rule of law, according to the report. In addition, a greater emphasis on sustaining and building up local militaries, which may be repressive and corrupt, may actually prove counter-productive.”
He added that this report is just the latest in a series of studies warning of the increasing militarisation of U.S. foreign policy. This is an extremly important, timely, report. It is essential reading for the next administration for sure, if not all of you interested in foreign policy issues.
Public Radio International’s The World show also broadcast a segment about the report, and interviewed Washington PostSenior Diplomatic Correspondent Karen DeYoung about the significance of this shift.
The report was released the same day that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had breakfast with the members of the House Foreign Relations Committee (HFAC) hearing to discuss what was called “the persistent imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.”
While no transcript of Gates’ remarks is available, Gates has made several public statements about the need for better funding for more “soft power,” civilian activities. In January, at an event at the Center for International Security Studies, Gates said that the challenges posed by the global war on terrorism “cannot be overcome by military means alone and they extend well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or department. They require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power.”
At the hearing, HFAC Acting Chairman Howard Berman observed “Berman observed that “in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department.”
Berman also expressed his concern for the problem: “This committee is examining the issue closely to guard against Defense Department over-reaching into areas traditionally under the authority of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. We’re concerned that an overly expansive military role in support of short-term security interests could work to the detriment of long-term foreign policy goals, which would be dangerous and destabilizing. The face of America abroad needs to be, first and foremost, its diplomats. Secretary Gates’ breakfast with us is a welcome first step in making sure this happens.”
This is a good first step. But the following statement Berman made at the breakfast might reveal that in this tug of war of resources between the two Departments, he might be biased toward Defense: ”The gap in civilian capacity has over-burdened the military, which has assumed tasks best performed by civilian experts.”
This is true, but ut seems a little backwards to look at an underfunded State Department and focus on how its deficiencies burden the Defense Department, rather than the practice of diplomacy itself.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Detroit News: Foreign Service should become more gay-friendly
Foreign Service should become more gay-friendly
By Deb Price
Ordinarily, the swearing-in ceremony of the newest U.S. ambassador to Romania wouldn't be a headline-grabber.
But the courageous insistence that day in September 2001 of Michael Guest, the first openly gay American to be confirmed by the Senate to be an ambassador, that his partner be acknowledged by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored that the moment was anything but ordinary.
To his credit, Powell did respectfully acknowledge Guest's partner, who went on to live with Guest in the ambassador's residence in Bucharest.
But, sadly, the State Department didn't follow up with much-needed changes in actual policy even though Guest lobbied for years.
Because he was ignored when he tried to sound the alarm that, for example, the exclusion of gay partners from safety classes puts them at serious risk, Guest decided to end his 26-year career. Fittingly, at his retirement ceremony in late November, Guest again made headlines.
"It's irrational that my partner can't be trained in how to recognize a terrorist threat or an intelligence trap," said Guest, 50, whose last job was dean of the department's Leadership and Management School. "It's unfair. Why serve in dangerous or unhealthful places if partners' evacuations and medevacs are at issue? ... This is not about gay rights. Rather it's about the safety and effectiveness of our communities abroad."
Guest says the prospect of another assignment abroad forced him to choose between standing up for his partner of 12 years and serving his country.
His farewell bombshell triggered demands for change from Capitol Hill. Four House members, including gay Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge her make overdue changes.
As the lawmakers point out, partners of gay Foreign Service officers don't get to use embassy health services. They wouldn't get protection from avian flu. What's more, when a U.S. embassy gets evacuated, gay partners must pay to escape the crisis.
Gay partners aren't included in the intensive language training that other family members receive before overseas postings. They don't get the preferential treatment given other family members who apply for consulate or embassy jobs.
The lawmakers also expressed concern that partners are barred from the security classes given spouses of heterosexual Foreign Service officers.
But on Feb. 25, just days after the lawmakers contacted Rice, Foreign Service Director General Harry K. Thomas Jr. announced he was "extending access to security training" to "members of household" -- an elastic term that includes gay partners -- because "they can be at risk" and making them more savvy about dangers "can positively contribute to our collective safety."
A frustrated Guest says that step is too little too late. "It's unconscionable that the administration has not done that until now," said Guest, now working to get the United States to address anti-gay human rights abuses abroad. "My partner is my family. That is very basic. And that is why the changes need to be made."
The State Department is the civilian face that America shows the world. Making that face more gay-friendly will benefit our entire nation, not just the partnered gay Americans sacrificing so much to serve abroad.
Digger comments:
As some of you know, I was an MOH before I joined the State Department. Like Ambassador Guest's partner, I was not allowed to take language or security training. I was not allowed to use the health unit at post and would have had to pay to be evacuated had the protests surrounding the presidential elections turned more violent. I joined the Department because I wanted to be with my partner, but without creating a security risk for both of us. Family members are given diplomatic protections to protect our diplomats from being targeted through their families.
So now I get to serve my country, and I am extremely proud of that. But I had to give up a career I loved to do it and to protect myself and my partner. It isn't a viable choice for everyone to make, and just as heterosexual spouses don't have to make that choice, neither should same-sex partners.
By Deb Price
Ordinarily, the swearing-in ceremony of the newest U.S. ambassador to Romania wouldn't be a headline-grabber.
But the courageous insistence that day in September 2001 of Michael Guest, the first openly gay American to be confirmed by the Senate to be an ambassador, that his partner be acknowledged by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored that the moment was anything but ordinary.
To his credit, Powell did respectfully acknowledge Guest's partner, who went on to live with Guest in the ambassador's residence in Bucharest.
But, sadly, the State Department didn't follow up with much-needed changes in actual policy even though Guest lobbied for years.
Because he was ignored when he tried to sound the alarm that, for example, the exclusion of gay partners from safety classes puts them at serious risk, Guest decided to end his 26-year career. Fittingly, at his retirement ceremony in late November, Guest again made headlines.
"It's irrational that my partner can't be trained in how to recognize a terrorist threat or an intelligence trap," said Guest, 50, whose last job was dean of the department's Leadership and Management School. "It's unfair. Why serve in dangerous or unhealthful places if partners' evacuations and medevacs are at issue? ... This is not about gay rights. Rather it's about the safety and effectiveness of our communities abroad."
Guest says the prospect of another assignment abroad forced him to choose between standing up for his partner of 12 years and serving his country.
His farewell bombshell triggered demands for change from Capitol Hill. Four House members, including gay Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge her make overdue changes.
As the lawmakers point out, partners of gay Foreign Service officers don't get to use embassy health services. They wouldn't get protection from avian flu. What's more, when a U.S. embassy gets evacuated, gay partners must pay to escape the crisis.
Gay partners aren't included in the intensive language training that other family members receive before overseas postings. They don't get the preferential treatment given other family members who apply for consulate or embassy jobs.
The lawmakers also expressed concern that partners are barred from the security classes given spouses of heterosexual Foreign Service officers.
But on Feb. 25, just days after the lawmakers contacted Rice, Foreign Service Director General Harry K. Thomas Jr. announced he was "extending access to security training" to "members of household" -- an elastic term that includes gay partners -- because "they can be at risk" and making them more savvy about dangers "can positively contribute to our collective safety."
A frustrated Guest says that step is too little too late. "It's unconscionable that the administration has not done that until now," said Guest, now working to get the United States to address anti-gay human rights abuses abroad. "My partner is my family. That is very basic. And that is why the changes need to be made."
The State Department is the civilian face that America shows the world. Making that face more gay-friendly will benefit our entire nation, not just the partnered gay Americans sacrificing so much to serve abroad.
Digger comments:
As some of you know, I was an MOH before I joined the State Department. Like Ambassador Guest's partner, I was not allowed to take language or security training. I was not allowed to use the health unit at post and would have had to pay to be evacuated had the protests surrounding the presidential elections turned more violent. I joined the Department because I wanted to be with my partner, but without creating a security risk for both of us. Family members are given diplomatic protections to protect our diplomats from being targeted through their families.
So now I get to serve my country, and I am extremely proud of that. But I had to give up a career I loved to do it and to protect myself and my partner. It isn't a viable choice for everyone to make, and just as heterosexual spouses don't have to make that choice, neither should same-sex partners.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
DMW: We Hire Gay People
Dead Men Working has an interesting take on Michael Guest's editorial in the Foreign Service Journal:
The Foreign Service does more than negotiate treaties and gather information. We continue, as we always have, to represent the United States. In many cases, an American diplomat may be the first or even the only American a foreign official might meet, and it is important that our service represent our country and its values.
When Ronald Reagan appointed Edward Perkins to serve as the first of what would be several African American ambassadors of the United States to apartheid South Africa, he did so to make a political point. To express, in his choice of representative, an American value. To make a statement about who we are, and who we represent.
When the State Department hires but discriminates against Gays, or any other group, they make a different statement:
"We follow the law, because we have to, but not because we believe it is the right thing to do."
Department leadership should take a stand. If it wants a Foreign Service that reflects the diversity of the American population, it should do more than eliminate impediments to hiring and promotion. It should actively promote not merely tolerance for diversity, but appreciation of diversity.
That means treating every employee, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, equally on all fronts.
Including overseas benefits. And security clearances.
Because it is the right thing to do.
You can read the entire post here: We Hire Gay People!
The Foreign Service does more than negotiate treaties and gather information. We continue, as we always have, to represent the United States. In many cases, an American diplomat may be the first or even the only American a foreign official might meet, and it is important that our service represent our country and its values.
When Ronald Reagan appointed Edward Perkins to serve as the first of what would be several African American ambassadors of the United States to apartheid South Africa, he did so to make a political point. To express, in his choice of representative, an American value. To make a statement about who we are, and who we represent.
When the State Department hires but discriminates against Gays, or any other group, they make a different statement:
"We follow the law, because we have to, but not because we believe it is the right thing to do."
Department leadership should take a stand. If it wants a Foreign Service that reflects the diversity of the American population, it should do more than eliminate impediments to hiring and promotion. It should actively promote not merely tolerance for diversity, but appreciation of diversity.
That means treating every employee, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, equally on all fronts.
Including overseas benefits. And security clearances.
Because it is the right thing to do.
You can read the entire post here: We Hire Gay People!
Friday, March 07, 2008
Michael Guest: Member of Household Policy: Failing Our Families
Below is a guest editorial in the current issue of the Foreign Service Journal by Ambassador Michael Guest:
Member of Household Policy: Failing Our Families
Last November I left the Foreign Service, frustrated by the State Department’s continued failure to revise Member of Household policy to reflect the needs of today’s diplomacy and to support the families who accompany us in our duties abroad.
Certainly I never felt ostracism from any of my colleagues, Foreign or Civil Service, over the fact that I am gay. I very much miss being part of the State Department team, and I miss serving my country in meaningful and tangible ways. My partner felt the same sense of mission that I did, even moving to a more portable career — in no small part to support me in my chosen profession.
But let’s be clear. MOH policy is strikingly out of date with today’s workplace dangers, realities and needs. And by not taking action, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her senior management team are putting lives at risk. They’re impairing the effectiveness of our diplomatic platforms. They sanction workplace inequalities, in spite of the equal service requirements we all share. And they stand against the principles of equality, fairness and respect for diversity on which Americawas founded — principles America’s diplomats are charged with promoting
abroad.
A Catch-22
The creation of “Members of Household” as an official categorywas announced in a Dec. 26, 2000, cable from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in one of her final acts. The designation embraces a wide range of individuals: aging parents, adult children and unmarried partners, both straight and gay. All MOHs are allowed to accompany their loved ones to any overseas posting where spouses and children are able to reside with Foreign Service employees.
Current policy essentially gives ambassadors leeway, within heavily drawn limitations, to make modest accommodations for Members of Household in our overseas diplomatic communities. Variations abound from post to post; in all cases, though, MOH treatment is vastly inferior to that accorded “Eligible Family Members.”
If this administration took its management duties seriously, it would have instituted a thorough review of MOH policy at some point within its seven years in office. Some long-overdue revisions should be applied to all MOH categories. For instance, common sense would surely dictate that all Foreign Service community members be required to take the Security Overseas Seminar, so they can learn how to avoid terrorist threats and intelligence traps. Yet incredibly, Members of Household are not even allowed to enroll for that training, no matter how many spaces are open in the classroom.
Digger Comments:
MOHs are allowed, as of the cable issued February 25 and posted to this blog on February 27, to enroll in Security Overseas Seminar.
While all MOHs deserve greater consideration, my particular focus has been on the unequal treatment accorded gay and lesbian employees and their partners. After all, parents who are more than 50-percent financially dependent on a Foreign Service employee can be added to travel orders. Adult, non-dependent children might be expected to carry their own weight in a grown-up’s world. And while some (including me) believe it unwise for personnel policies to force marriage on a young, untempered relationship, straight couples at least have the option of marriage, by which they can obtain the spousal benefits that MOHs are barred from receiving.
In contrast, gay and lesbian employees are caught in an impossibly unfair Catch-22. Though they cannot marry, their partners are, like spouses, core family members. The department’s choice to make marriage the fulcrum on which training, protections and benefits are bestowed thus discriminates against a group of employees who have no recourse, yet whose service commitments are identical in every way to those of their straight colleagues.
Real Impact
Consider the real impact of the department’s outdated MOH policy.
Security. Partners aren’t offered the protections that diplomatic passports afford. They aren’t guaranteed access to embassy medical facilities, even in places where State’s own medical professionals consider local facilities inadequate. Under current rules, Members of Household would not be given Tamiflu in an avian flu outbreak, thereby inviting vulnerability into our households. And in places where dangers and uncertainty are facts of life, the government offers gay and lesbian employees no assurance that their families, too, will be evacuated in hostile situations or imminent danger.
Effectiveness. Partners of ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission aren’t allowed to sit in otherwise vacant Foreign Service Institute seats to learn the informal community leadership roles expected of them — a deficit that’s detrimental not only to them and to us, but to the communities they’re expected to serve. Partners aren’t taught the language and culture of the country in which they, as much as spouses, will cast impressions of America through their daily interactions. Without spouse-equivalent priority for post employment, partners can’t compete fairly for jobs for which they may be ideally qualified — depriving missions of the talent match they should be seeking.
Service equity. When gay and lesbian employees answer the call to duty in Iraq and elsewhere, their partners don’t receive the separate maintenance allowances that spouses receive. Are our service and our families’ sacrifices of lesser value? Although State now generously reimburses the transportation of pets to and from post, gay and lesbian employees’ partners must pay their own way — a telling suggestion that the department values domesticated animals more than it does our family members. Similarly, visa support for partners is not offered.
As ambassador to Romania, I was interrogated by a Republican Hill staffer as to whether my partner’s socks and underwear were carried to post in my household effects shipment or his luggage. And this was in the days after 9/11, when my focus needed to be on our nation’s security needs. Should anyone have to endure such demeaning treatment?
Diversity. Although Sec. Rice and other senior department leaders say they value diversity, their inattention to these matters renders that claim hollow at best. No one, of course, would suggest that the discriminatory workplace policies I’ve described compare even remotely in scope or magnitude to the discrimination that she so often recounts having witnessed in Birmingham, Ala., as a child. But these policies nonetheless are discriminatory — and all the more so because the only remedy offered (marriage) is not available to gay and lesbian employees. Why is discrimination, in any form or degree, tolerated in the institution that this Secretary leads?
A Leadership Deficit
Those who lead our public institutions are accountable for addressing problems that impede the safety, effectiveness and morale of their organizations. If they truly care about keeping talent, they should want to catch up with America’s private sector, which is so far ahead of the federal government in these matters.
For three years, a succession of senior State Department “leaders” have told me that I’m absolutely right to call for revisions to MOH policy, but that the issues are complex. Recently, they’ve taken to pointing out that the department doesn’t discriminate in hiring and promotions. What a clever dodge! That’s never, in fact, been charged. Rather, it’s State’s discriminatory treatment of a group of employees that’s at issue, as rights and protections are being accorded to families on the basis of a criterion that gay and lesbian employees can in no way meet.
As the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D - Calif.,chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Dec. 19, 2007, with specific reference to the Foreign Service: “There is no rational explanation for a same-sex domestic partner to be treated as a second-class citizen. … These dedicated men and women serve their country, yet our government does not honor the basic rights of the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families.”
The State Department’s failure to address these issues reflects, quite bluntly, a seventh-floor leadership deficit. It’s time for the department to step up to its leadership responsibilities to colleagues who give our country their best, yet who are denied the equal and fair treatment promised by the flag under which they serve.
Member of Household Policy: Failing Our Families
Last November I left the Foreign Service, frustrated by the State Department’s continued failure to revise Member of Household policy to reflect the needs of today’s diplomacy and to support the families who accompany us in our duties abroad.
Certainly I never felt ostracism from any of my colleagues, Foreign or Civil Service, over the fact that I am gay. I very much miss being part of the State Department team, and I miss serving my country in meaningful and tangible ways. My partner felt the same sense of mission that I did, even moving to a more portable career — in no small part to support me in my chosen profession.
But let’s be clear. MOH policy is strikingly out of date with today’s workplace dangers, realities and needs. And by not taking action, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her senior management team are putting lives at risk. They’re impairing the effectiveness of our diplomatic platforms. They sanction workplace inequalities, in spite of the equal service requirements we all share. And they stand against the principles of equality, fairness and respect for diversity on which Americawas founded — principles America’s diplomats are charged with promoting
abroad.
A Catch-22
The creation of “Members of Household” as an official categorywas announced in a Dec. 26, 2000, cable from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in one of her final acts. The designation embraces a wide range of individuals: aging parents, adult children and unmarried partners, both straight and gay. All MOHs are allowed to accompany their loved ones to any overseas posting where spouses and children are able to reside with Foreign Service employees.
Current policy essentially gives ambassadors leeway, within heavily drawn limitations, to make modest accommodations for Members of Household in our overseas diplomatic communities. Variations abound from post to post; in all cases, though, MOH treatment is vastly inferior to that accorded “Eligible Family Members.”
If this administration took its management duties seriously, it would have instituted a thorough review of MOH policy at some point within its seven years in office. Some long-overdue revisions should be applied to all MOH categories. For instance, common sense would surely dictate that all Foreign Service community members be required to take the Security Overseas Seminar, so they can learn how to avoid terrorist threats and intelligence traps. Yet incredibly, Members of Household are not even allowed to enroll for that training, no matter how many spaces are open in the classroom.
Digger Comments:
MOHs are allowed, as of the cable issued February 25 and posted to this blog on February 27, to enroll in Security Overseas Seminar.
While all MOHs deserve greater consideration, my particular focus has been on the unequal treatment accorded gay and lesbian employees and their partners. After all, parents who are more than 50-percent financially dependent on a Foreign Service employee can be added to travel orders. Adult, non-dependent children might be expected to carry their own weight in a grown-up’s world. And while some (including me) believe it unwise for personnel policies to force marriage on a young, untempered relationship, straight couples at least have the option of marriage, by which they can obtain the spousal benefits that MOHs are barred from receiving.
In contrast, gay and lesbian employees are caught in an impossibly unfair Catch-22. Though they cannot marry, their partners are, like spouses, core family members. The department’s choice to make marriage the fulcrum on which training, protections and benefits are bestowed thus discriminates against a group of employees who have no recourse, yet whose service commitments are identical in every way to those of their straight colleagues.
Real Impact
Consider the real impact of the department’s outdated MOH policy.
Security. Partners aren’t offered the protections that diplomatic passports afford. They aren’t guaranteed access to embassy medical facilities, even in places where State’s own medical professionals consider local facilities inadequate. Under current rules, Members of Household would not be given Tamiflu in an avian flu outbreak, thereby inviting vulnerability into our households. And in places where dangers and uncertainty are facts of life, the government offers gay and lesbian employees no assurance that their families, too, will be evacuated in hostile situations or imminent danger.
Effectiveness. Partners of ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission aren’t allowed to sit in otherwise vacant Foreign Service Institute seats to learn the informal community leadership roles expected of them — a deficit that’s detrimental not only to them and to us, but to the communities they’re expected to serve. Partners aren’t taught the language and culture of the country in which they, as much as spouses, will cast impressions of America through their daily interactions. Without spouse-equivalent priority for post employment, partners can’t compete fairly for jobs for which they may be ideally qualified — depriving missions of the talent match they should be seeking.
Service equity. When gay and lesbian employees answer the call to duty in Iraq and elsewhere, their partners don’t receive the separate maintenance allowances that spouses receive. Are our service and our families’ sacrifices of lesser value? Although State now generously reimburses the transportation of pets to and from post, gay and lesbian employees’ partners must pay their own way — a telling suggestion that the department values domesticated animals more than it does our family members. Similarly, visa support for partners is not offered.
As ambassador to Romania, I was interrogated by a Republican Hill staffer as to whether my partner’s socks and underwear were carried to post in my household effects shipment or his luggage. And this was in the days after 9/11, when my focus needed to be on our nation’s security needs. Should anyone have to endure such demeaning treatment?
Diversity. Although Sec. Rice and other senior department leaders say they value diversity, their inattention to these matters renders that claim hollow at best. No one, of course, would suggest that the discriminatory workplace policies I’ve described compare even remotely in scope or magnitude to the discrimination that she so often recounts having witnessed in Birmingham, Ala., as a child. But these policies nonetheless are discriminatory — and all the more so because the only remedy offered (marriage) is not available to gay and lesbian employees. Why is discrimination, in any form or degree, tolerated in the institution that this Secretary leads?
A Leadership Deficit
Those who lead our public institutions are accountable for addressing problems that impede the safety, effectiveness and morale of their organizations. If they truly care about keeping talent, they should want to catch up with America’s private sector, which is so far ahead of the federal government in these matters.
For three years, a succession of senior State Department “leaders” have told me that I’m absolutely right to call for revisions to MOH policy, but that the issues are complex. Recently, they’ve taken to pointing out that the department doesn’t discriminate in hiring and promotions. What a clever dodge! That’s never, in fact, been charged. Rather, it’s State’s discriminatory treatment of a group of employees that’s at issue, as rights and protections are being accorded to families on the basis of a criterion that gay and lesbian employees can in no way meet.
As the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D - Calif.,chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Dec. 19, 2007, with specific reference to the Foreign Service: “There is no rational explanation for a same-sex domestic partner to be treated as a second-class citizen. … These dedicated men and women serve their country, yet our government does not honor the basic rights of the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families.”
The State Department’s failure to address these issues reflects, quite bluntly, a seventh-floor leadership deficit. It’s time for the department to step up to its leadership responsibilities to colleagues who give our country their best, yet who are denied the equal and fair treatment promised by the flag under which they serve.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Plans to Retire
This from BBC News:
US Iraq envoy plans to step down
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has told the Washington Post newspaper that he intends to leave his post early next year, to retire.
Reports have said Amb. Crocker may leave Baghdad as soon as mid-January, before a new American president takes office.
Amb. Crocker has repeatedly said that US troop withdrawals from Iraq should depend on conditions on the ground and not on timetables set in Washington.
This puts him at odds with the policies of some presidential candidates.
"I am prepared to remain in Baghdad until early 2009, when I intend to retire," Amb. Crocker told the Washington Post.
"That will make two years in Iraq and 37 years in the Foreign Service - it's enough!"
Amb. Crocker arrived in Baghdad in March 2007.
He is a fluent Arabic speaker who has worked as a diplomat in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Kuwait.
Amb. Crocker is credited with bringing in a number of experienced diplomats into the US embassy in Baghdad and restoring a sense of discipline to America's largest diplomatic mission, the Washington Post said.
Gen David Petraeus is also expected to leave Iraq on a scheduled rotation of duties just before Mr Crocker has said he will retire.
Gen Petraeus is credited with successfully implementing the US troop surge that is partly behind the reduction of violence in Iraq.
US Iraq envoy plans to step down
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has told the Washington Post newspaper that he intends to leave his post early next year, to retire.
Reports have said Amb. Crocker may leave Baghdad as soon as mid-January, before a new American president takes office.
Amb. Crocker has repeatedly said that US troop withdrawals from Iraq should depend on conditions on the ground and not on timetables set in Washington.
This puts him at odds with the policies of some presidential candidates.
"I am prepared to remain in Baghdad until early 2009, when I intend to retire," Amb. Crocker told the Washington Post.
"That will make two years in Iraq and 37 years in the Foreign Service - it's enough!"
Amb. Crocker arrived in Baghdad in March 2007.
He is a fluent Arabic speaker who has worked as a diplomat in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Kuwait.
Amb. Crocker is credited with bringing in a number of experienced diplomats into the US embassy in Baghdad and restoring a sense of discipline to America's largest diplomatic mission, the Washington Post said.
Gen David Petraeus is also expected to leave Iraq on a scheduled rotation of duties just before Mr Crocker has said he will retire.
Gen Petraeus is credited with successfully implementing the US troop surge that is partly behind the reduction of violence in Iraq.
Secretary Gates Discusses Foreign Policy Budget
On The Hill discussed yesterday's meeting of Defense Secretary Gates with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Defense Secretary Gates Discusses U.S. Foreign Policy Budget Imbalance With Committee
Defense Secretary Robert Gates met today with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss an imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.
"We are grateful that Secretary Gates took the time and trouble to bring his message to this group and to hear us," acting committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) says. "Years ago the U.S. Secretary of Defense came before the Foreign Affairs Committee regularly. Reinstating this custom will help Congress and the Administration work more closely together to restore some balance between what has come to be known as 'hard power' and 'soft power.' And Mr. Gates' own statements of late bear that out."
According to a statement from the committee, in a November 26, 2007 speech, Gates said, "The Department of Defense has taken on many of (the) burdens that might have been assumed by civilian agencies in the past...[F]orced by circumstances, our brave men and women in uniform have stepped up to the task, with field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils -- usually in a language they don't speak...But it is no replacement for the real thing -- civilian involvement and expertise."
And four weeks ago, the committee statement says, Gates noted at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that long-term security challenges "require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power."
Before Foreign Affairs Committee members met with the defense secretary this morning, Berman observed that "in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the StateDepartment and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department."
Berman says that the international affairs budget that supports diplomacy and development programs directly contributes to U.S. national security. "The activities under this budget help fight terrorism through a variety of means, prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons, and enhance the safety of our embassies around the world. They also support a plethora of programs to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law; to give a boost to U.S. businesses abroad; and to provide much-needed aid for people in the poorest places in the world. And yet, ironically, this budget typically requires just more than one percent of total federal spending.
"On fighting terrorism in particular, Berman says, "We cannot win the fight against extremists by proverbially tying one arm behind our back. We need to deploy America's finest engineers, development experts and diplomats in the campaign for reconstruction and stabilization invulnerable countries. I welcome Secretary Gates' advocacy to help bolster the civilian agencies best suited for that fight.
"In a voice vote on Wednesday the House passed H.R. 1084, which establishes a Readiness Response Corps so that the United States can deploy civilian personnel in response to crises to support reconstruction and stabilization projects abroad -- such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Advocating the bill's passage in a statement on the House floor, Berman said that "there are only 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers today in the State Department. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, this is less than the personnel of one carrier battle group and, allegedly, less than the number of active military band members."
Defense Secretary Gates Discusses U.S. Foreign Policy Budget Imbalance With Committee
Defense Secretary Robert Gates met today with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss an imbalance between U.S. funding for defense and diplomacy.
"We are grateful that Secretary Gates took the time and trouble to bring his message to this group and to hear us," acting committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) says. "Years ago the U.S. Secretary of Defense came before the Foreign Affairs Committee regularly. Reinstating this custom will help Congress and the Administration work more closely together to restore some balance between what has come to be known as 'hard power' and 'soft power.' And Mr. Gates' own statements of late bear that out."
According to a statement from the committee, in a November 26, 2007 speech, Gates said, "The Department of Defense has taken on many of (the) burdens that might have been assumed by civilian agencies in the past...[F]orced by circumstances, our brave men and women in uniform have stepped up to the task, with field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils -- usually in a language they don't speak...But it is no replacement for the real thing -- civilian involvement and expertise."
And four weeks ago, the committee statement says, Gates noted at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that long-term security challenges "require our government to operate with unity, agility, and creativity, and will require devoting considerably more resources to non-military instruments of national power."
Before Foreign Affairs Committee members met with the defense secretary this morning, Berman observed that "in his 2002 National Security Strategy, President Bush affirmed that diplomacy and development are just as important as defense. They will not be funded equally, but we should strive to strike a better balance than we have now. The budget for the StateDepartment and the U.S. Agency for International Development together is anemic next to that of the Defense Department."
Berman says that the international affairs budget that supports diplomacy and development programs directly contributes to U.S. national security. "The activities under this budget help fight terrorism through a variety of means, prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons, and enhance the safety of our embassies around the world. They also support a plethora of programs to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law; to give a boost to U.S. businesses abroad; and to provide much-needed aid for people in the poorest places in the world. And yet, ironically, this budget typically requires just more than one percent of total federal spending.
"On fighting terrorism in particular, Berman says, "We cannot win the fight against extremists by proverbially tying one arm behind our back. We need to deploy America's finest engineers, development experts and diplomats in the campaign for reconstruction and stabilization invulnerable countries. I welcome Secretary Gates' advocacy to help bolster the civilian agencies best suited for that fight.
"In a voice vote on Wednesday the House passed H.R. 1084, which establishes a Readiness Response Corps so that the United States can deploy civilian personnel in response to crises to support reconstruction and stabilization projects abroad -- such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Advocating the bill's passage in a statement on the House floor, Berman said that "there are only 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers today in the State Department. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, this is less than the personnel of one carrier battle group and, allegedly, less than the number of active military band members."
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Mountainrunner responds to Abu Aardvark
Not Afraid to Talk: our adversaries aren't, why are we?
By MountainRunner
GWU professor Marc Lynch, perhaps more commonly known as Abu Aardvark, revealed the positions on public diplomacy of the current presidential candidates:
I came across something interesting while doing some research on public diplomacy for an unrelated project. Since at least the 9/11 Commission Report, almost every foreign policy blueprint or platform has for better or for worse mentioned the need to fix American public diplomacy and to engage with the "war of ideas" in the Islamic world. I expected all three remaining Presidential candidates to offer at least some boilerplate rhetoric on the theme. What I found was different.
Marc highlighted the differences between the presidential candidates on what is arguably the most important and yet least understood element of our national security. At the end of his post, he challenged John Brown, Patricia Kushlis, and this blogger to offer our thoughts. Patricia at Whirled View responded, as did John Brown and a few others. I suggest you read their responses.
The central theme underlying the candidates' positions is, of course, the use of persuasion to shape desirable outcomes. The ability to influence has broad implications beyond physical security issues like terrorism. Economic security (think trade and tourism) and the effectiveness of traditional diplomacy are impacted as well. While, as Marc tells us, Clinton avoids the subject of public diplomacy (and apparently the concept as well), McCain and Obama focus too narrowly on the current struggle. The result is recommendations that are bound to fail.
To begin with, we must accept that the romantic days of the United States Information Agency are gone. So many confuse the USIA and the other information services, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, of recent decades with the USIA that was engaged in the active psychological struggle that largely ended with détente and the finalizing of the European partition.
Unlike half a century ago, the U.S. military has a clear voice and is arguably our dominant public diplomat. Therefore, simply resurrecting “USIA” without reorganizing our national information capabilities across civilian and military lines would turn it into just another voice struggling to be heard over America’s military commanders, spokespersons, and warfighters.
The candidates must look deeper than re-creating an agency and or re-establishing old outreach programs. They must show strong leadership and have a bold vision to rally the government and country to adapt to a world that requires understanding the information effect of action, agile response capabilities, and above all, credibility and trust.
What needs to change?
First and foremost, we must revisit and discuss the purpose and intent of the prohibitions of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Debated and enacted to improve the quality of our responses to adversarial propaganda during the communications revolution of the 1940s, it was based on the communications market of the time. It is now invoked to prevent any potential communication that might possibly be heard or seen by Americans. This fear of being overheard in America has done more to neuter U.S. responses and to encourage the creation of new information functions than anything else. We have created an information architecture that cares more about how a broadcast, flyer, or message will play in Iowa than in the primary center of gravity of the fight: the minds of the support base of our adversary. The result is timid responses and artificial self-containment out of touch with the virtual geography of today’s psychological landscape.
Second, our information bureaucracies have become cylinders of excellence (or “stovepipes” for the less sarcastic) based not on effects but means and with limited to no interoperability or coordination. The different working philosophies of the State Department and the Defense Department challenge the ability to create a cohesive U.S. narrative. The State Department’s Public Diplomacy, for example, is configured to influence over an extended period of years or decades. Rarely is it intended to shift ideas and perceptions over months or even weeks.
The Defense Department runs by a different clock. Defense Department groups, from Public Affairs and Information Operations and to Psychological Operations, work proactively and frequently as part of a multifaceted approach to shape outcomes both during and immediately after an event. The extended Defense timeline includes State-like longue durée approaches, but it mostly operates in the “here and now” because of the need to respond to the current battlefield.
Third, we must better understand root causes of radicalization and disenfranchisement. Responding to this requires more than words, but deeds. As I wrote elsewhere, enduring change comes from systemic overhauls that stabilize unstable regions. Security, humanitarian relief, governance, economic stabilization, and development are critical for democratization. Failing to address grinding poverty and disillusionment in regions creates fertile breeding grounds for extremists, terrorists, and insurgents to attack the national interests of the United States. These are the real propaganda of deeds. Without competent and comprehensive action in these areas, tactical operations are simply a waste of time, money, and life.
Edward R. Murrow, the only chief of the United States Information Agency who regularly attended National Security Council meetings, famously stated that public diplomacy must not only be in on the “crash landings” but also at the take-offs. This is true of any attempt to persuade or compel, which are the goals of both foreign policy and military operations. It is essential that the information effects of what we do are considered from the outset, including the impact of information campaigns.
Sixty years ago, the elements of America’s national power – diplomacy, information, military, and economics, or DIME – were retooled to meet an emerging threat with the National Security Act of 1947 and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Then as it is today, the U.S. was engaged in a war of ideas and perceptions both globally and domestically, however the importance and impact of Smith-Mundt is ignored despite its influence, often negative, on every aspect of America’s informational arsenal.
This year the Defense Department will look into how the National Security Act of 1947 should be modified to adapt to 21st Century conflict. The candidates should be bold and argue for a more holistic self-analysis.
Our information systems suffer from inflexibility and internal resistance rooted in a misunderstanding of Smith-Mundt that requires updating to conform to a reality that makes separating audiences by geography both impractical and undesirable. This will not be a conflict over hearts and passions, but a psychological struggle over minds and wills. We must stop telling foreign publics what we want our own people to hear. Unless we get our information house in order, the United States will remain virtually unarmed in the battles that shape our future.
Now is the time to retool for the current and future fight. Our economic and physical security depends on it.
By MountainRunner
GWU professor Marc Lynch, perhaps more commonly known as Abu Aardvark, revealed the positions on public diplomacy of the current presidential candidates:
I came across something interesting while doing some research on public diplomacy for an unrelated project. Since at least the 9/11 Commission Report, almost every foreign policy blueprint or platform has for better or for worse mentioned the need to fix American public diplomacy and to engage with the "war of ideas" in the Islamic world. I expected all three remaining Presidential candidates to offer at least some boilerplate rhetoric on the theme. What I found was different.
Marc highlighted the differences between the presidential candidates on what is arguably the most important and yet least understood element of our national security. At the end of his post, he challenged John Brown, Patricia Kushlis, and this blogger to offer our thoughts. Patricia at Whirled View responded, as did John Brown and a few others. I suggest you read their responses.
The central theme underlying the candidates' positions is, of course, the use of persuasion to shape desirable outcomes. The ability to influence has broad implications beyond physical security issues like terrorism. Economic security (think trade and tourism) and the effectiveness of traditional diplomacy are impacted as well. While, as Marc tells us, Clinton avoids the subject of public diplomacy (and apparently the concept as well), McCain and Obama focus too narrowly on the current struggle. The result is recommendations that are bound to fail.
To begin with, we must accept that the romantic days of the United States Information Agency are gone. So many confuse the USIA and the other information services, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, of recent decades with the USIA that was engaged in the active psychological struggle that largely ended with détente and the finalizing of the European partition.
Unlike half a century ago, the U.S. military has a clear voice and is arguably our dominant public diplomat. Therefore, simply resurrecting “USIA” without reorganizing our national information capabilities across civilian and military lines would turn it into just another voice struggling to be heard over America’s military commanders, spokespersons, and warfighters.
The candidates must look deeper than re-creating an agency and or re-establishing old outreach programs. They must show strong leadership and have a bold vision to rally the government and country to adapt to a world that requires understanding the information effect of action, agile response capabilities, and above all, credibility and trust.
What needs to change?
First and foremost, we must revisit and discuss the purpose and intent of the prohibitions of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Debated and enacted to improve the quality of our responses to adversarial propaganda during the communications revolution of the 1940s, it was based on the communications market of the time. It is now invoked to prevent any potential communication that might possibly be heard or seen by Americans. This fear of being overheard in America has done more to neuter U.S. responses and to encourage the creation of new information functions than anything else. We have created an information architecture that cares more about how a broadcast, flyer, or message will play in Iowa than in the primary center of gravity of the fight: the minds of the support base of our adversary. The result is timid responses and artificial self-containment out of touch with the virtual geography of today’s psychological landscape.
Second, our information bureaucracies have become cylinders of excellence (or “stovepipes” for the less sarcastic) based not on effects but means and with limited to no interoperability or coordination. The different working philosophies of the State Department and the Defense Department challenge the ability to create a cohesive U.S. narrative. The State Department’s Public Diplomacy, for example, is configured to influence over an extended period of years or decades. Rarely is it intended to shift ideas and perceptions over months or even weeks.
The Defense Department runs by a different clock. Defense Department groups, from Public Affairs and Information Operations and to Psychological Operations, work proactively and frequently as part of a multifaceted approach to shape outcomes both during and immediately after an event. The extended Defense timeline includes State-like longue durée approaches, but it mostly operates in the “here and now” because of the need to respond to the current battlefield.
Third, we must better understand root causes of radicalization and disenfranchisement. Responding to this requires more than words, but deeds. As I wrote elsewhere, enduring change comes from systemic overhauls that stabilize unstable regions. Security, humanitarian relief, governance, economic stabilization, and development are critical for democratization. Failing to address grinding poverty and disillusionment in regions creates fertile breeding grounds for extremists, terrorists, and insurgents to attack the national interests of the United States. These are the real propaganda of deeds. Without competent and comprehensive action in these areas, tactical operations are simply a waste of time, money, and life.
Edward R. Murrow, the only chief of the United States Information Agency who regularly attended National Security Council meetings, famously stated that public diplomacy must not only be in on the “crash landings” but also at the take-offs. This is true of any attempt to persuade or compel, which are the goals of both foreign policy and military operations. It is essential that the information effects of what we do are considered from the outset, including the impact of information campaigns.
Sixty years ago, the elements of America’s national power – diplomacy, information, military, and economics, or DIME – were retooled to meet an emerging threat with the National Security Act of 1947 and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Then as it is today, the U.S. was engaged in a war of ideas and perceptions both globally and domestically, however the importance and impact of Smith-Mundt is ignored despite its influence, often negative, on every aspect of America’s informational arsenal.
This year the Defense Department will look into how the National Security Act of 1947 should be modified to adapt to 21st Century conflict. The candidates should be bold and argue for a more holistic self-analysis.
Our information systems suffer from inflexibility and internal resistance rooted in a misunderstanding of Smith-Mundt that requires updating to conform to a reality that makes separating audiences by geography both impractical and undesirable. This will not be a conflict over hearts and passions, but a psychological struggle over minds and wills. We must stop telling foreign publics what we want our own people to hear. Unless we get our information house in order, the United States will remain virtually unarmed in the battles that shape our future.
Now is the time to retool for the current and future fight. Our economic and physical security depends on it.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Bloggers discuss Public Diplomacy
In response to an earlier post by Abu Aardvark, several bloggers I have often quoted here (WhirledView, Mountainrunner, John Brown) comment on the Presidential candidates discussion (or lack thereof) of the importance of Public Diplomacy in the implementation of foreign policy. I thought it was worth quoting in its entirety:
talk about anything, again
As hoped, my post on the public diplomacy platforms of the Presidential candidates has drawn some interesting and thoughtful responses.
From public diplomacy expert Patricia Kushlis:
"Lynch seems to have it right regarding Clinton’s lack of discussion - or even public recognition - that public diplomacy might play a role, let alone a significant one – in the implementation of US foreign policy in a future administration under her leadership. It's not that she disavows public diplomacy, it just that it has apparently gone missing throughout her foreign policy statements. This void has surprised me too. If I've missed something, please let me know.....
I, like Marc, fail to understand why Clinton has also not filled in the public diplomacy blanks or crossed the soft power "t"s. She has, after all, a bevy of very experienced foreign policy advisors. Furthermore, there have been over 30 studies since 9/11 including those by the Executive branch, the Congress and various prestigious US think-tanks – left, right and center - that have highlighted the need to overhaul how the US communicates with the Muslim world.
Where Marc and I differ, however, is in his characterization of McCain’s ideas as well developed and his description of Obama’s America’s Voice Initiative as being modeled after the Peace Corps."
Read the rest of her detailed comments at Whirled View. I have some particular thoughts about her interesting comments on the "America's Voice" initiative, but I'll hold off for now.
Elevated from comments, the veteran diplomat John Brown, of the late and lamented Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review:
"As for the present and future role of PD, allow me to make several rather unoriginal points, based on my twenty-plus years in the Foreign Service.
1. Make PD central in the formulation of policy. Take foreign public opinion into serious consideration at the beginning, not at the end, of the policy-making process. "If they want me in on the crash landings, I better d___ well be in on the take-offs." So said Edward R. Murrow, United States Information Agency (USIA) Director during the Kennedy administration.
2. End the turf wars among Washington bureaucracies on who is in charge of public diplomacy. Take the Pentagon out of the PD business.
3. Get over the nostalgia for the USIA (abolished in 1999) and America’s PD “triumphs” during the Cold War. Instead, give serious thought about how PD should be organized in our new century.
3. Stop the blah-blah-blah about “American values” being “our main message to the world.” Instead, present America in all its complexity with a variety of messages that are relevant to local audiences. Drop the nonsense term “war on terror.”
4. Abandon the Karen Hughes phrase, “diplomacy of deeds,” reminiscent of the anarchists’ “propaganda of the deed.” PD is about dialogue; words, not just action, are important. More on this at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/411/
5. Empower PD diplomats in the field, giving them sufficient resources to make an impact in the countries where they serve. To cite Murrow again: "It has always seemed to me the real art in this business is not so much moving information or guidance or policy five or 10,000 miles. That is an electronic problem. The real art is to move it the last three feet in face to face conversation."
6. Make foreign language instruction a true priority in the training of PD officers. Too few of our diplomats really speak local languages.
PS. My memo to Karen Hughes at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0424-20.htm"
From media and conflict expert Kenneth Payne (at least I assume it's that KP and not someone else with the same name - if not I abjectly apologize!), in comments:
"Marc, it's a frequent contention that PD hasn't worked because it's effectively an effort to lipstick a pig - with foreign policy the pig, of course.
Pew polls certainly bear out the failure of PD under the Bush admin - but is that really a PD failure? Is there analytically any need to separate out PD from policymaking? PD amplifies policy choices, but a bigger, more free media does that anyway - you can't block Al Jaz, or BBC Arabic. And internet usage in the ME is exploding.
I suspect the audiences American PD reached knew all about its ambition for democratization, and they knew all about the contradictions that stopped much traction in achieving that.
Would you agree though that IO - information operations - a broader term; has had some success is in communicating promises that the US can keep - at a local scale in Anbar, for example....?
As for PD marketing American values, liberalism, individualism etc etc - doesn't the soft power of the private sector take care of that? Starbucks plus Hollywood does more for America than Al Hurra..."
Finally, commenter dmo (sorry, that's the only ID I've got!):
"Clinton's failure to address public diplomacy does not surprise me. Her husband's administration did not value it and indeed downgraded it by eliminating USIA.
The Clintons, it seems to me, ascribe to what Michael Waltzer calls the emancipation model at the level of international society. (Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism) Their concern is with powerless and vulnerable people as individuals. They do not see group (national, ethnic) cultural identity as enduring difference requiring a modus vivendi among ways of life that will always be different.
Certainly, during the Clinton administration, the liberal internationalist assumption that formation of a universal civilization was well underway informed their policies and their politics. Why would you need international dialog between the United States and other cultures that are destined to disappear into the evolving cosmopolitan norm? They assumed a convergence of values that in the rapidly globalizing post cold war era appeared fast approaching.
Moving public diplomacy into the State department was their way of downgrading regional and national considerations about policies and increasing attention to “global issues.” An earlier Clinton effort to completely reorganize the State Department around issues – led by Jessica Mathews – had failed. Injecting public diplomacy into State was intended to expand the pie as a way of realigning the institutional focus.
It would appear that Obama is that second kind of liberal. He does not seem to believe that a universal civilization is coming and therefore he is willing to think afresh about coexistence in a pluralistic world. John Grey in his Two Faces of Liberalism calls for this particular variant of the liberal tradition to be strengthened. “…this means shedding the illusion that theories of justice and rights can deliver us from the ironies and tragedies of politics.” Attention to public diplomacy makes complete sense for this kind of liberal. Cultures do differ both in values they have in common and in values they recognize. Dialog can lead to toleration.
McCain appears less interested in public diplomacy than in what we used to call advocacy and is now called strategic communication. His interest is in the “war of ideas” and advancing American objectives in the global information battle-space."
Apologies to anyone I left out - those interested should check out the comment thread, and I'll update any additional comments from other blogs or via email here on this follow up post. My responses will mostly come later when I finish the piece I'm working up - so now's the time to help out and get your 50 cents in!
talk about anything, again
As hoped, my post on the public diplomacy platforms of the Presidential candidates has drawn some interesting and thoughtful responses.
From public diplomacy expert Patricia Kushlis:
"Lynch seems to have it right regarding Clinton’s lack of discussion - or even public recognition - that public diplomacy might play a role, let alone a significant one – in the implementation of US foreign policy in a future administration under her leadership. It's not that she disavows public diplomacy, it just that it has apparently gone missing throughout her foreign policy statements. This void has surprised me too. If I've missed something, please let me know.....
I, like Marc, fail to understand why Clinton has also not filled in the public diplomacy blanks or crossed the soft power "t"s. She has, after all, a bevy of very experienced foreign policy advisors. Furthermore, there have been over 30 studies since 9/11 including those by the Executive branch, the Congress and various prestigious US think-tanks – left, right and center - that have highlighted the need to overhaul how the US communicates with the Muslim world.
Where Marc and I differ, however, is in his characterization of McCain’s ideas as well developed and his description of Obama’s America’s Voice Initiative as being modeled after the Peace Corps."
Read the rest of her detailed comments at Whirled View. I have some particular thoughts about her interesting comments on the "America's Voice" initiative, but I'll hold off for now.
Elevated from comments, the veteran diplomat John Brown, of the late and lamented Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review:
"As for the present and future role of PD, allow me to make several rather unoriginal points, based on my twenty-plus years in the Foreign Service.
1. Make PD central in the formulation of policy. Take foreign public opinion into serious consideration at the beginning, not at the end, of the policy-making process. "If they want me in on the crash landings, I better d___ well be in on the take-offs." So said Edward R. Murrow, United States Information Agency (USIA) Director during the Kennedy administration.
2. End the turf wars among Washington bureaucracies on who is in charge of public diplomacy. Take the Pentagon out of the PD business.
3. Get over the nostalgia for the USIA (abolished in 1999) and America’s PD “triumphs” during the Cold War. Instead, give serious thought about how PD should be organized in our new century.
3. Stop the blah-blah-blah about “American values” being “our main message to the world.” Instead, present America in all its complexity with a variety of messages that are relevant to local audiences. Drop the nonsense term “war on terror.”
4. Abandon the Karen Hughes phrase, “diplomacy of deeds,” reminiscent of the anarchists’ “propaganda of the deed.” PD is about dialogue; words, not just action, are important. More on this at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/411/
5. Empower PD diplomats in the field, giving them sufficient resources to make an impact in the countries where they serve. To cite Murrow again: "It has always seemed to me the real art in this business is not so much moving information or guidance or policy five or 10,000 miles. That is an electronic problem. The real art is to move it the last three feet in face to face conversation."
6. Make foreign language instruction a true priority in the training of PD officers. Too few of our diplomats really speak local languages.
PS. My memo to Karen Hughes at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0424-20.htm"
From media and conflict expert Kenneth Payne (at least I assume it's that KP and not someone else with the same name - if not I abjectly apologize!), in comments:
"Marc, it's a frequent contention that PD hasn't worked because it's effectively an effort to lipstick a pig - with foreign policy the pig, of course.
Pew polls certainly bear out the failure of PD under the Bush admin - but is that really a PD failure? Is there analytically any need to separate out PD from policymaking? PD amplifies policy choices, but a bigger, more free media does that anyway - you can't block Al Jaz, or BBC Arabic. And internet usage in the ME is exploding.
I suspect the audiences American PD reached knew all about its ambition for democratization, and they knew all about the contradictions that stopped much traction in achieving that.
Would you agree though that IO - information operations - a broader term; has had some success is in communicating promises that the US can keep - at a local scale in Anbar, for example....?
As for PD marketing American values, liberalism, individualism etc etc - doesn't the soft power of the private sector take care of that? Starbucks plus Hollywood does more for America than Al Hurra..."
Finally, commenter dmo (sorry, that's the only ID I've got!):
"Clinton's failure to address public diplomacy does not surprise me. Her husband's administration did not value it and indeed downgraded it by eliminating USIA.
The Clintons, it seems to me, ascribe to what Michael Waltzer calls the emancipation model at the level of international society. (Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism) Their concern is with powerless and vulnerable people as individuals. They do not see group (national, ethnic) cultural identity as enduring difference requiring a modus vivendi among ways of life that will always be different.
Certainly, during the Clinton administration, the liberal internationalist assumption that formation of a universal civilization was well underway informed their policies and their politics. Why would you need international dialog between the United States and other cultures that are destined to disappear into the evolving cosmopolitan norm? They assumed a convergence of values that in the rapidly globalizing post cold war era appeared fast approaching.
Moving public diplomacy into the State department was their way of downgrading regional and national considerations about policies and increasing attention to “global issues.” An earlier Clinton effort to completely reorganize the State Department around issues – led by Jessica Mathews – had failed. Injecting public diplomacy into State was intended to expand the pie as a way of realigning the institutional focus.
It would appear that Obama is that second kind of liberal. He does not seem to believe that a universal civilization is coming and therefore he is willing to think afresh about coexistence in a pluralistic world. John Grey in his Two Faces of Liberalism calls for this particular variant of the liberal tradition to be strengthened. “…this means shedding the illusion that theories of justice and rights can deliver us from the ironies and tragedies of politics.” Attention to public diplomacy makes complete sense for this kind of liberal. Cultures do differ both in values they have in common and in values they recognize. Dialog can lead to toleration.
McCain appears less interested in public diplomacy than in what we used to call advocacy and is now called strategic communication. His interest is in the “war of ideas” and advancing American objectives in the global information battle-space."
Apologies to anyone I left out - those interested should check out the comment thread, and I'll update any additional comments from other blogs or via email here on this follow up post. My responses will mostly come later when I finish the piece I'm working up - so now's the time to help out and get your 50 cents in!
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
New Diplomats: Split families
CNN's Zain Verjee talks to Anne Aguilera, who left her family behind to serve in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
CNN Interview of FSO Anne Aguilera & Family
You can read Anne's blog here.
CNN Interview of FSO Anne Aguilera & Family
You can read Anne's blog here.
Monday, March 03, 2008
U.S. Diplomacy: Crucial Phase for Secretary Rice
U.S. Diplomacy discusses the Middle East Peace Process today in light of the recent violence in Gaza.
Crucial Phase for Secretary Rice
Secretary Condoleezza Rice travels to Israel this week to help restart peace talks. Rocket attacks followed by Israeli raids escalated towards the end of last week, erupting into a Gaza incursion on Saturday. Abu Mazen suspended negotiations with Israel, due to the escalation in violence.
We have cited on this blog before the dual track Israel has pursued: bolster support of Abu Mazen through negotiations, while isolating and increasing pressure on Hamas. Last week’s events show that these tracks are interconnected, placing an ominous feeling over the peace-process.
If the Annapolis Conference is looking more like just a photo opportunity, it is because the United States has not played an active role in negotiations. Now that negotiations appear to be falling apart, Secretary Rice has no choice but to get involved.
What’s most disconcerting is that if Secretary Rice fails to resurrect peace talks, Israel will more than likely go ahead with a large invasion of Gaza. McClatchy journalist Dion Nissenbaum recently pointed out that a tipping point is afoot. A large scale invasion into Gaza would spell disaster for peace negotiations, leaving Fatah and Abu Mazen with few options. One such option would be to resume armed struggle against Israel, and perhaps a third intifada. Zvi Bar’el writing in Haaretz notes, "the Gazan civilian population, hundreds of thousands of whose representative grabbed hold of the lifeline that was momentarily available to them when Hamas breached the wall closing them in, is the dynamite on which the first and second intifadas were built."
Now’s the time for Secretary Rice to step up to the challenge and bring US influence to bear on this dire circumstance.
Crucial Phase for Secretary Rice
Secretary Condoleezza Rice travels to Israel this week to help restart peace talks. Rocket attacks followed by Israeli raids escalated towards the end of last week, erupting into a Gaza incursion on Saturday. Abu Mazen suspended negotiations with Israel, due to the escalation in violence.
We have cited on this blog before the dual track Israel has pursued: bolster support of Abu Mazen through negotiations, while isolating and increasing pressure on Hamas. Last week’s events show that these tracks are interconnected, placing an ominous feeling over the peace-process.
If the Annapolis Conference is looking more like just a photo opportunity, it is because the United States has not played an active role in negotiations. Now that negotiations appear to be falling apart, Secretary Rice has no choice but to get involved.
What’s most disconcerting is that if Secretary Rice fails to resurrect peace talks, Israel will more than likely go ahead with a large invasion of Gaza. McClatchy journalist Dion Nissenbaum recently pointed out that a tipping point is afoot. A large scale invasion into Gaza would spell disaster for peace negotiations, leaving Fatah and Abu Mazen with few options. One such option would be to resume armed struggle against Israel, and perhaps a third intifada. Zvi Bar’el writing in Haaretz notes, "the Gazan civilian population, hundreds of thousands of whose representative grabbed hold of the lifeline that was momentarily available to them when Hamas breached the wall closing them in, is the dynamite on which the first and second intifadas were built."
Now’s the time for Secretary Rice to step up to the challenge and bring US influence to bear on this dire circumstance.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
A Really Bad Idea
This was on Foreign Policy Passport yesterday:
Blackwater enters the campaign
Hillary Clinton has co-sponsored new legislation to ban the use of private military contractors in Iraq. This came just a day after the publication of an article by The Nation's Jeremy Scahill in which a senior advisor to Barack Obama said that the candidate "won't rule out" the use of PMCs. Given how integral PMCs have become to U.S. operations at this point, Obama's reservations about a blanket ban make some sense. Still, he can't relish the idea of being on the "pro-Blackwater" side of this issue.
Digger comments:
IMHO, this is a profoundly bad idea. I have not served with any of the folks from Blackwater, but while I was in Jerusalem, I served with members both of the other primary PMC's in Iraq, Triple Canopy and Dyncorp. I found them to be professional and dedicated, and as what would be considered a "high value target" (all diplomats are) I was extremely grateful to have them. We simply don't have enough Diplomatic Security agents to make certain our folks are safe overseas, and our military is already stretched thin enough without having to take on the role now filled by these private contractors. When we do our work, we often have to go to predictable places at predictable times, making that kind of protection vital. I wouldn't have wanted to serve in Jerusalem, much less Iraq, without them.
Yes, we need more oversight. But a ban seems like a bad idea.
Blackwater enters the campaign
Hillary Clinton has co-sponsored new legislation to ban the use of private military contractors in Iraq. This came just a day after the publication of an article by The Nation's Jeremy Scahill in which a senior advisor to Barack Obama said that the candidate "won't rule out" the use of PMCs. Given how integral PMCs have become to U.S. operations at this point, Obama's reservations about a blanket ban make some sense. Still, he can't relish the idea of being on the "pro-Blackwater" side of this issue.
Digger comments:
IMHO, this is a profoundly bad idea. I have not served with any of the folks from Blackwater, but while I was in Jerusalem, I served with members both of the other primary PMC's in Iraq, Triple Canopy and Dyncorp. I found them to be professional and dedicated, and as what would be considered a "high value target" (all diplomats are) I was extremely grateful to have them. We simply don't have enough Diplomatic Security agents to make certain our folks are safe overseas, and our military is already stretched thin enough without having to take on the role now filled by these private contractors. When we do our work, we often have to go to predictable places at predictable times, making that kind of protection vital. I wouldn't have wanted to serve in Jerusalem, much less Iraq, without them.
Yes, we need more oversight. But a ban seems like a bad idea.
We'll miss you, Maura
Today was Ambassador Maura Harty's last day as the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. I am sure most people are sorry to see her go. In fact, a email was sent around secretly saying:
"A/S Harty forbid us to have a big sendoff for her in the office.
A/S Harty forbid us to have a big sendoff for her after work.
However, A/S Harty didn't say anything about ambushing her in the parking garage."
M was able to go...I was not since I was home (I am on the overnight shift tonight). Apparently lots of folks showed up and gave her a very teary send-off.
Ambassador Harty became the Assistant Secretary in 2002. She joined the Foreign Service in 1981, after receiving a bachelor’s degree from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. She served in Mexico City, participated in the rescue mission to Grenada and was a Watch Officer in the Operations Center (and was promoted to Senior Watch Officer (SWO) during that assignment). She was a Special Assistant to then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz, chief of the non-immigrant visa section in Bogota, Colombia, Consul at the American Embassy in Madrid (during which time she also assisted in the opening of the American Embassy in Vilnius, Lithuania). She was Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, where she created the office of Children’s Issues, and was a Deputy Executive Secretary and Executive Assistant to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Following that assignment, she became the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay.
I first met Maura in 2002. She was the mentor for M's A-100 class (the 106th), and I went to several of the class functions where spouses were allowed. Everyone adored her, and she had a reputation for really going to bat for her people. But she touched me most when she came to Jerusalem. All of the Junior Officers were to come to the Consul General's house for dinner with her. But I was very late...because that was the very day my apartment was robbed. I made it to the dinner after hours with the police (and the FSN who helped me through that ordeal is still one of my favorite people!) Maura remembered me immediately as being M's partner, and when I apologized for being late and explained, she immediately hugged me and asked if there was anything she could do. She was so kind and so supportive during I time when I felt so alone and distraught (it was my first tour, I had only been at post 2 months, and M wasn't scheduled to arrive until May). I will always think fondly of her, and I hate to see her go. I join lots of people in wishing her the best.
"A/S Harty forbid us to have a big sendoff for her in the office.
A/S Harty forbid us to have a big sendoff for her after work.
However, A/S Harty didn't say anything about ambushing her in the parking garage."
M was able to go...I was not since I was home (I am on the overnight shift tonight). Apparently lots of folks showed up and gave her a very teary send-off.
Ambassador Harty became the Assistant Secretary in 2002. She joined the Foreign Service in 1981, after receiving a bachelor’s degree from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. She served in Mexico City, participated in the rescue mission to Grenada and was a Watch Officer in the Operations Center (and was promoted to Senior Watch Officer (SWO) during that assignment). She was a Special Assistant to then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz, chief of the non-immigrant visa section in Bogota, Colombia, Consul at the American Embassy in Madrid (during which time she also assisted in the opening of the American Embassy in Vilnius, Lithuania). She was Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, where she created the office of Children’s Issues, and was a Deputy Executive Secretary and Executive Assistant to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Following that assignment, she became the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay.
I first met Maura in 2002. She was the mentor for M's A-100 class (the 106th), and I went to several of the class functions where spouses were allowed. Everyone adored her, and she had a reputation for really going to bat for her people. But she touched me most when she came to Jerusalem. All of the Junior Officers were to come to the Consul General's house for dinner with her. But I was very late...because that was the very day my apartment was robbed. I made it to the dinner after hours with the police (and the FSN who helped me through that ordeal is still one of my favorite people!) Maura remembered me immediately as being M's partner, and when I apologized for being late and explained, she immediately hugged me and asked if there was anything she could do. She was so kind and so supportive during I time when I felt so alone and distraught (it was my first tour, I had only been at post 2 months, and M wasn't scheduled to arrive until May). I will always think fondly of her, and I hate to see her go. I join lots of people in wishing her the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
