Retired FSO calls for end to political-appointee Ambassadorships

The article below was written by Barbara Bodine for Politico. Ambassador Bodine is director of the Scholars in the Nation’s Service Initiative, a program that encourages students to pursue careers in the federal government, at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. She served for more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, including as U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 1997 to 2001.

It's time to stop selling ambassadorships
By BARBARA BODINE

During the Cold War, Malcolm Toon, a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service and ambassador to Moscow, was chatting with his good friend, a four-star admiral and head of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. They were both coming to the end of long and distinguished careers and mused about what they would do next. The admiral told Toon he thought he might want to be an ambassador — someplace nice, of course. The ambassador paused, considered this and, in response, quipped that he thought he might become an admiral.

[...]

The American Academy of Diplomacy, which counts among its members all living ex-secretaries of state, recently called upon Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain to pledge to end this practice and accord the nation’s diplomacy and diplomats the same recognition we accord our senior military officers, who dedicate their careers to national service.

The academy acknowledged that there has been, and will continue to be, notable noncareer ambassadors such as Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker (interestingly, both former senators) and realistically recommends that noncareer ambassadorships be held to no more than 10 percent, down from the current 30-plus percent. But it makes clear that it is untenable for a great power, a global power, to entrust its frontline national security managers — ambassadors — to used car salesmen, hairdressers, art dealers and strip mall developers, as it has in the recent past.

It is not an issue of individual patriotism, loyalty to the president and to administration policies, or personal commitment; politically appointed ambassadors are no more or less patriotic, loyal or committed than are career diplomats. It is a question of experience, expertise and depth of competence. Diplomacy is not an amateur sport or avocation; it’s a skilled profession.

It is imperative to hold the selection of America’s ambassadors to the highest standards of leadership, judgment, national and international knowledge, intellect, and interpersonal skills (just a few of the skill sets the academy set out as the standards for selection). But there is one other less immediate but profoundly important reason for the next American president to recognize and advance professionalism at the top: to attract talent at the bottom.

The American people need our government to attract and promote the very best of the next generation — and our foreign policy and national security demands it. Government service, the Foreign Service, is a calling. Foreign Service officers do it not for the glamour or the lifestyle (and certainly not the money), but out of a sense of commitment to country, of service, and out of a belief — and idealism, perhaps — that they can, through individual efforts as part of an embassy “team,” make the United States and the world just a little safer, just a little better than when they walked in.

American diplomats dedicate their careers, their lives, to developing the skills, experience and expertise necessary to test their mettle daily. Their investment is matched by the investment the American taxpayer makes to develop this cohort of skilled professionals.

How do you explain to a student or any aspirant to the Foreign Service that, while the U.S. government expects that level of commitment, no matter how well and how long you serve, it is likely that a political donor with little relevant experience will end up with the top job of your profession?

[...]

You can read the entire piece here.

More Ado About the Obama Speech and the Alledged "Double Standard"

The issue of the folks from the Berlin Embassy being barred from attending Barack Obama's speech still has the blogsphere fired up, with this added twist: an alledged double standard.
Here's a sample:

But the ruling — which Kennedy admitted is unprecedented — appears to indicate a double standard from the State Department. Last June, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa. The event was reportedly organized in part by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, whom President Bush appointed in 2005. But more than that, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa confirmed to ThinkProgress that Wilkins also attended the event.

Not only did McCain make clear references to and critiques of Obama’s policy positions in the speech, but he also referred to his own presidential campaign six times.

Although both the McCain and Obama campaigns denied their respective speeches in Ottawa and Berlin were political, the State Department only prohibited diplomats from attending Obama’s event. The fact that Wilkins attended McCain’s speech without worries that he would “be seen to be advocating one side or the other,” undermines Kennedy’s justification for barring Foreign Service personnel from attending Obama’s speech.

What these and similar websites are failing to understand is that Ambassador Wilkins is NOT a Foreign Service Officer any more than Ambassador Bolton was. They both were (and Wilkins still is) political appointees. All Ambassadors are the President's representatives overseas and will resign their positions come January. Those who are NOT political appointees will likely resume their positions and those who aren't likely will not, even if the Republicans retain control of the White House.

Not so with your standard issue FSO. We continue in our positions regardless of shifts in administration. We are to be seen abroad as advocates for the current foreign policy of the United States. Our ability to do that is weakened if we are seen as taking one political side over the other.

So would it have been a double standard had FSOs attended the fundraiser organized by Ambassador Wilkins? Likely. Is it a double standard that Ambassador Wilkins, a political appointee picked by the President, did? Not really.

Obama's Germany Speech

I probably shouldn't broach this, but the blogosphere has been absolutely abuzz with chatter about the Foreign Serivce Officers in Berlin being banned from attending Obama's speech there.

At the risk of public flogging, I sort of understand the ban.

Yes, as a public diplomacy-coned officer, I would have liked to have been there to gauge crowd response. But this was a very partisan event, paid for by the Obama campaign. Unlike the Afghanistan and Iraq portions of the trip, which were part of a CODEL (Congressional Delegation) and therefore required mission support, this was paid for by a campaign funds.

When we are overseas, we are considered to be on duty 24/7 and we represent the American people --all of them-- and the American government. We are allowed to comment on domestic policy but not to disagree with foreign policy. That is part of the deal we sign on to when we join the Foreign Service. You may not like it, you don't have to like it, but you have to do it or find employment elsewhere.

Some have argued that had this been McCain, Embassy officials would have been allowed to attend. Perhaps. But it would have been no more appropriate for them to attend if that trip was paid for by campaign funds.

Oh and for the record, the reports that say we can not donate to a political campaign are incorrect. According to the Hatch Act, we CAN donate to campaigns, we can volunteer our time, etc. We just can't use our official position in any capacity in that work, regardless of political affiliation.

Another loss to the MOH policy

Today, Backlist, another Foreign Service Officer, posted her letter of resignation on her site. She yet another example of how the Department is costing itself real talent and loyal service by its antiquated MOH policy.

Here is her letter:

Dear Secretary Rice:

It is with the deepest regret that I submit my resignation from the Foreign Service. I have greatly enjoyed serving my country and the Department for ten years as a Foreign Service Officer. During this time I served as a General Services Officer in both Sao Paulo and Maputo, as the Ethiopia Desk Officer, on the INR Watch, and as a Deputy Coordinator teaching A-100 for incoming Foreign Service Generalists. However, I cannot in good conscience continue to subject my same-sex partner to discriminatory security, health, language, employment, training, travel and housing policies.

I would remain a Foreign Service Officer if I were confident that the Member of Household (MOH) policy would improve and offer support for my family. However, the discrimination inherent in the current Department of State MOH policy makes my continued service impossible. It is time the Department catch up to the private sector where the majority of Fortune 500 companies have domestic partnership benefits that that value employees and welcome their families. Particularly in a climate of increasing numbers of unaccompanied and dangerous posts, it is unconscionable that the Department has chosen to disregard opportunities where forward looking leadership and vision would have made an immeasurable difference in my partner’s everyday life.

Thank you for the opportunity to spend ten years in service to the United States. I have met so many wonderful people and along the way my colleagues have become my closest friends. Despite the treatment of my family as second class citizenry, I will treasure my memories of public service with the Department.

You can read her entire post here.

No...Seriously

I have been seeing this story all day and thought it was a joke. I couldn't find any version of the story until this one that addressed whether she had even applied to the State Department. Turns out, she did.

First off, I completely understand and think the Department is within its right to refuse to hire someone because of a medical issue that could affect where they can serve. Why should someone join the Department and be exempt from Day One from serving in hardship posts. What that means is that those of us who have served at hardship posts have that many fewer positions we can serve in at the "nice" posts that often serve as a means of decompression after a hardship tour. I am fine with someone who comes in capable of serving in hardship posts and then has a decline in health making them unable to. They came in prepared to do their fair share but life intervened. But coming in with no ability to serve a hardship tour? That's not fair to the rest of us.

But here is the second thing: what does the ability to have sex have to do with serving? It sounds like she was not hired because of her need for ongoing treatment for her breast cancer and that the "disability" is being used as an excuse to try to make the Department hire her. Employers are supposed to make reasonable accommodation to people who have disabilities that might ordinarily keep them from serving. For example, a blind person could expect items printed in brail or a reader. Why on earth would they not hire her because she can't have sex (after the Nachman incident, it would seem to make them MORE likely to hire her) and what accommodations could they possibly make.

I mean seriously. I hope the Department doesn't give in. Hire her if she is qualified and her cancer is in remission so that she can serve in hardship posts. But this is absurd.

Here is the story:

Court rules sexual disability is protected under anti-discrimination laws

WASHINGTON A South Carolina breast-cancer survivor has beaten the State Department and convinced judges in Washington that the inability to have sex is a disability protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The new appellate court ruling gives Piedmont, S.C., resident Kathy E. Adams another potential shot at serving overseas. More broadly, the ruling cracks open the courtroom door for additional legal challenges by those who are sexually incapacitated.

“I think it’s a major victory for former cancer patients, and for anyone who has had their sex life disrupted,” Adams’ attorney, David H. Shapiro, said Tuesday.

Adams, also a practicing lawyer, wants to compel the State Department to hire her as a foreign service officer and provide back pay. She’ll now go before a jury and trial judge, unless the State Department relents first.

[...]

The Russian-speaking Adams aced the State Department’s Foreign Service written and oral exams in 2002, ranking seventh out of 200 candidates. She was in line to start training in January 2004.

Before her training started, doctors diagnosed her with breast cancer. She underwent surgery, but the State Department subsequently denied her entry into the Foreign Service.

“The department could not guarantee (her) access to the required medical follow-up and surveillance at all overseas assignments,” a State Department nurse testified.

State Department officials added, and the dissenting appellate judge agreed, that the department didn’t know about Adams’ sexual disability when it declined to hire her. The court majority, however, reasoned that “it makes no difference whether an employer has precise knowledge of an employee’s substantial limitation” so long as the employer knows about the impairment.

In this case, the State Department knew about Adams’ breast cancer but didn’t know how the cancer treatments impaired her sex life.

On this day...

I found this today on IntLawGrrls. It is the first time I have visited the blog, but it seems to be one I will add to my regular list of blogs to read. I recommend you check it out.

On this day in ...... 1953 (55 years ago today), Frances E. Willis became the 1st woman U.S. Foreign Service Officer to be appointed an Ambassador. Previously an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Vassar College, Dr. Willis, who'd earned her Ph.D. at Stanford, was appointed Ambassador to Switzerland. She presented her credentials on October 9 and served until May 5, 1957. Willis later served as Ambassador to Norway, from 1957 to 1961, and Ambassador to Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, from 1961 to 1964. The 3d woman ever to be a Foreign Service Officer, upon her appointment to that position on August 29, 1927, she was appointed a Career Ambassador on March 20, 1962. Willis, who died in 1983, was honored on the postage stamp above.

Gays Don't Count

This was in The Associated Press yesterday. It doesn't directly relate to the Foreign Service, though the service does continue to treat legally married same-sex couples as single "Members of Household":

Census won't recognize gay marriages in 2010 count

Same-sex marriage is legal in two states, but not a single one will show up in the 2010 census.

The Census Bureau says the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing gay marriages in the nation's 10-year count, even though the marriages are legal in Massachusetts and California.

The agency's director, Steven Murdock, said in an interview Thursday that the 1996 federal law "has that effect, in terms of being a federal agency. We are restricted by it."

The Census Bureau does not ask people about their sexual orientation, but it does ask about their relationships to the head of the household. Many gay couples are listed in census figures as unmarried, same-sex partners, though it is an imperfect tally of all gay couples.

Murdock said the bureau will strive to count same-sex couples in the 2010 census, just as it has in the past. But those people who say they are married will be reclassified as unmarried, same-sex partners.

Same-sex couples with no children will not be classified as families, according the bureau's policy. Those with children who are related to the head of the household will be classified as families.

[...]

The bureau relies almost entirely on people's responses to classify them by race, ethnicity, age and income. But not marital status _ at least not in 2010.

"It really should be what you say you are, not what I perceive you to be," Murdock said. But, the agency director added, "We have some limitations. This particular act limits us in regards to this issue."

The issue was also covered by the Washington Post:

Census Won't Count Gay Marriages

[...]

Although gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and California, census officials say that same-sex partners in both states who list themselves as spouses will be recorded as "unmarried partners" -- just as they were in the 2000 census.

Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner cited the Defense of Marriage Act, approved by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing as a marriage the union of anyone but a man and a woman.

The law "requires all federal agencies to recognize only opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of administering federal programs," Buckner wrote in an e-mailed statement. "Many of these programs rely on Census Bureau statistics."

Census officials have said the agency will retain same-sex spouses' original responses but will edit them for the published census tabulations. The policy was first reported by the San Jose Mercury News.

[...]

Critics of the policy -- and the law -- say it ignores the changing legal and political landscape in states that contain about 14 percent of the U.S. population. And it ensures that the census results will be factually incorrect, they say.

"Unfortunately the stupidity and unfairness of that law gives [the census] something of a colorable argument," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "It was aimed very specifically at this. It's all the more reason to repeal it. . . . What is it accomplishing by not having an accurate count? It's not even good demographic policy."

The lack of data about same-sex married couples will inhibit researchers who want to better understand a variety of issues, such as wage differences for gay married couples and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, said Gary Gates, a demographer at the UCLA School of Law.

"It limits our ability to get quality information," said Gates, author of the Gay and Lesbian Atlas. "In 2000, the census could very legitimately make the argument that with a same-sex couple, someone couldn't [legally] be a husband or wife. And so they were making an inaccurate response accurate by changing them to an 'unmarried partner.' The situation now is different. You are changing potentially accurate responses to inaccurate responses."

The policy will, for example, require that the couple's children be listed as having single parents, Gates said. And it will cause the census to undercount families, defined as two or more people in the same household related by birth, adoption or marriage, he said.

In Massachusetts, 10,490 same-sex couples were married between May 2004 and August 2007, according to state figures. California, which began same-sex marriages last month, does not keep similar figures. A ballot initiative would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

[...]

If I don't count, why do I have to pay taxes?

Huffington Post: Gates warns of militarization of US foreign policy

I saw this today in the Washington Post, but the Huffington Post carried the version below. You know, just a thought, and not even an original one (can't remember where I read it), but the next president, regardless of party affiliation, should consider keeping Secretary Gates. He is certainly an ally of the State Department.

Gates warns of militarization of US foreign policy

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's growing role in rebuilding war-battered nations has fueled concerns about a "creeping militarization" of American foreign policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

As the conflict in Afghanistan shows, coordinating war-fighting with diplomacy, job creation and road-building often doesn't work well, the Pentagon chief said in remarks prepared for delivery at an international policy dinner.

"Getting all these different elements to coordinate operations and share best practices has been a colossal _ and so far an all too often unsuccessful _ undertaking," said Gates.

He added that the increased involvement of the military in jobs that historically were done by civilian agencies has led to concerns of "a creeping militarization of some aspects of America's foreign policy."

[...]

Gates has repeatedly said that the State Department and some non-governmental organizations have been underfunded and understaffed for too long. And he has warned that military might alone cannot win wars.

Instead, he has called for more support for so-called soft power, with civilians contributing more in nonmilitary areas such as communication, economic assistance and political development.

[...]

Gates on Tuesday was introduced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice _ a choice that reflected their generally strong working relationship and his vocal support for giving her more resources.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory," Gates said, adding that military operations should support measures that promote economic and political growth. That effort, he said, must be coordinated with the U.N., NATO, other nations and agencies such as United States Agency for International Development.

"The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the U.S. military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns," said Gates.

[...]

Embarrassed by Nachman

Foreign Circus Life shares my sentiments on Gons Nachman. FCL writes:

Ashamed that Nachman is So Shameless

[...]

Nachman is a disgrace, one who makes every Foreign Service Officer sick because of his misuse of his office, and now he is trying to make the argument that he so immersed himself in the culture of the Congo that he didn't think it was wrong to have sex with young girls? I'm virtually speechless at the arrogance and idiocy of this pitiful attempt to mitigate his crimes. Like so many others in the Foreign Service, I hope he gets the 20 years the prosecution is seeking.

You can read her entire post here.

TSB on Gons Nachman to the Judge: In My Mind, I'm Only a Little Bit Guilty

The Skeptical Bureaucrat has been following the case of Gons Nachman for some time now. Nachman, you might have heard, is a former Foreign Service Officer who has been charged with a variety of crimes, including having sex with underage girls during his postings to Brazil and the Congo, as well as with pressuring visa applicants to have sex with him.

I have avoided covering this issue, mainly, in all honestly, because I am embarrassed that this man was in the FS. But his latest, which TSB covers very well below, is just beyond belief. To suggest that we, as diplomats, should be allowed to take advantage of children while overseas because of some perceived cultural difference (girls there age faster, he argues, so it isn't like having sex with children) is just offensive, and, for our service as diplomats, beyond the point. We can't smoke pot in Amsterdam either.

"Gons Nachman to the Judge: In My Mind, I'm Only a Little Bit Guilty

Damn! I was so looking forward to seeing Gons Nachman get sentenced tomorrow at the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria. But now he's gotten a last-minute postponement. According to today's AP story:

"An ex-diplomat [Gons G. Nachman] convicted of having sex with teenage girls in the Congo and Brazil and taping the encounters is asking a judge for leniency, claiming that cultural differences in those countries make sex with girls more acceptable.

Gons is the former INS Asylum Officer and State Department Vice Consul whose legal troubles I've been following for months (see here, here, here, here, and finally, here).

The judge has agreed to postpone sentencing until August 22, so that a "noted forensic psychologist" can probe Nachman's psyche as part of a defense ploy to show that Nachman became so highly attuned to Congolese cultural norms while serving as a U.S. Embassy political officer in Kinshasa that he came to believe it was only slightly improper to have sex with 14 year-old girls. And, if you buy that premise, then he shouldn't be punished as harshly as if he'd had sex with 14 year-olds in more Puritanical countries. Seriously. That's his story, a cultural subjectivist interpretation of statutory rape laws: your Honor, having adopted the values of my exotic surroundings, I did not regard those particular 14 year-old girls as deserving of the protection afforded them by U.S. law, and I ask that you respect my cultural beliefs.

But Gons isn't betting everything on this novel legal theory. According to the AP story, he also wrote a jailhouse letter to the Director of the U.S. Foreign Service in an apparent attempt to lay the groundwork for an appeal of his conviction.

"Another odd twist is Nachman's prominence in the nudist community: In the 1990s, when attending law school at the University of Pennsylvania, Nachman led several public demonstrations advocating nudity. Nachman now contends that he was targeted for investigation in part because of his well-known affinity for the nudist lifestyle.

In his letter to the Foreign Service director, Nachman says investigators knew of his interest in nudism and illegally searched his apartment with the notion of finding images that, taken out of context, could be used against him.

Nachman says in the letter that he disclosed his activism and lifestyle to the Foreign Service and had no problems receiving a security clearance. State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson declined to comment directly on whether an individual's advocacy for public nudity would be a factor in the State Department's hiring process."

Now I'll have to wait another five weeks for the next installment of the Gons Nachman saga."

You can read all of TSB's post and the subsequent comments here.

Playing Catch Up

Here's a good article in today's Government Executive. Although it does not mention the Foreign Service directly, these efforts stand to go a long way towards equalizing the treatment of GLBT Foreign Service Officers and Specialists and their partners (or Members of Household (MOH) in State lingo, though one GLIFAA member pointed out that a person isn't technically a member of your household if you are at an unaccompanied post, but they are still your family). A person with a same-sex spouse working for the federal government can expect to earn 13-34% less than his or her straight collegue when you consider the cost of health insurance alone. And that isn't entirely negated when same-sex partner benefits are offered, because the employee must pay taxes on that benefit as though it was income, unlike his or her hetersexual co-workers.

Playing Catch Up
By Alyssa Rosenberg
July 10, 2008

When it comes to employee benefits, "the federal government should be leading the way rather than following," Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in December.

This criticism might seem unwarranted because the government does offer many benefits that are competitive with or even superior to those in the private sector. Smith, however, was referring to one area where the government falls behind: extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners.

Late last year, Smith and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., introduced the latest iteration of legislation (S. 2521) to bring the federal government up to speed. But the legislation stalled, as did similar bills dating back at least to 2001.

Supporters including employee groups such as the National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government Employees say same-sex partner benefits are not simply a matter of fairness.

Approval of such benefits "will only strengthen the federal workforce and help the government recruit and retain the skilled and talented employees it needs," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said when the Smith-Lieberman bill was introduced.

The federal government shouldn't be afraid to set an example, Lieberman said, but he acknowledged the legislation would merely allow the government to catch up with the private sector.

Businesses have been learning the hard way, largely since the early 1990s, that a workplace that is unfriendly or indifferent to the concerns of gay and lesbian employees runs the risk of losing those workers to more supportive organizations. Offering same-sex partner benefits is a concrete way for organizations to show they want to recruit the best and brightest regardless of sexual orientation.

The Village Voice was the first company to offer same-sex partner benefits in 1982. Lotus became the first publicly traded company to do so in 1990. By 2004, almost three-quarters of the 50 biggest companies on the Fortune 500 list offered same-sex partner benefits. By 2006, the majority of Fortune 500 companies had followed suit.

These companies aren't necessarily making a statement about corporate values or social justice. Their main motivation is profit, and that means getting the best people, in part by treating them equally.

"Keeping qualified employees with domestic partners happy could help an employer retain employees," the 2003 edition of Domestic Partner Benefits: An Employer's Guide by Joseph Adams and Todd Solomon noted. "Domestic partner benefits can be a source of competition within industry sectors, and employers wishing to keep pace with their peers may want to offer domestic partner benefits. In fact, some employers already appear to have offered domestic partner benefits as a way to keep up with their competition."

One of the federal government's selling points to new employees is the strength of the benefits agencies offer. But for gay and lesbian employees, the financial value of those benefits may be less if they have to purchase additional health insurance for their partners.

Other employers have already made what initially might have been a difficult decision to extend partner benefits; the government might want to consider following their example.

So You Want To Be A Foreign Service Officer

The Director General of the Foreign Service, Harry Thomas, sent out this message. While the message was specifically geared towards State's interns, if you are interested in joining the Foreign Service, it provides the link to sign up for the test:

Colleagues:

I am pleased to announce that this year the Department will be offering the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) for the first time during the summer. This is an excellent opportunity to recruit the talented young interns who have been working with us over the past several weeks. If you have noticed an intern with the skills and passion to succeed in the Foreign Service, please take a moment to suggest that they take the test this summer.

The FSOT will be offered July 12-19. Interested candidates should register at www.careers.state.gov. They will need to complete a structured resume and reserve a slot at a nearby computer test center on one of the test days. The test itself will take about three hours. To show our support for their efforts, please allow interested interns time off to take the test during the work week.

Thank you for hosting interns in your bureau this summer and for helping us to recruit the best talent for the State Department.

Sincerely,

Harry K. Thomas, Jr.

AP: Attack Outside US Consulate in Turkey, 6 Dead

This was in Associated Press today. M and I have a very good friend there, and I am glad none of the officers or local staff were hurt. I am very sorry for the families of the police who were killed.

AP: Attack Outside US Consulate in Turkey, 6 Dead

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - Men armed with pistols and shotguns attacked a police guard post outside the U.S. consulate in Istanbul on Wednesday, sparking a gunbattle that left three attackers and three officers dead.

Turkish and U.S. officials called the shooting a terrorist attack. The U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Turkey's foreign ministry said security around all American diplomatic missions in Turkey had been increased.

Yavuz Erkut Yuksel, a bystander, told CNN-Turk television the attackers emerged from a vehicle and surprised the guard.

"One of them approached a policeman while hiding his gun and shot him in the head," Yuksel said.

Footage from a security camera at the site showed four armed and bearded men emerging from a car and killing a traffic policeman, then running toward a guard post some 50 yards away as other policemen fired back, the Dogan news agency reported.

The shootout caused panic and scattered people who were waiting in a line for visas. U.S. security personnel went inside the compound because they are not authorized to engage in armed action on Turkish soil, Dogan said.

A fourth policeman and the driver of a towing vehicle were wounded in the attack, Istanbul Gov. Muammer Guler said.

U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson said the consul general in Istanbul, Sharon Wiener, told him that that consulate staff were "safe and accounted for."

At least two of the attackers were Turkish nationals, Guler said. Police said they were pursuing a fourth attacker who escaped in a car after the attack outside the high-walled consulate compound in the residential Istinye district around 11 a.m.

"There is no claim of responsibility so far," Interior Minister Besir Atalay said at the scene.

Atalay said the police would not reveal the identities of the attackers and their possible affiliations for the sake of the investigation.

Television footage showed four people lying on the ground at the foot of the consulate's wall before officials removed the bodies.

"The Turkish police responded quickly and effectively. We are deeply grateful for the work that they do to protect our official U.S. government establishments here," Wilson said. "It is, of course, inappropriate now to speculate on who may have done this or why. It is an obvious act of terrorism. Our countries will stand together and confront this, as we have in the past."

The secure U.S. consulate building was built after homegrown Islamic militants linked to al-Qaida carried out suicide bombings in 2003 that targeted two synagogues, the British Consulate and a British bank in Istanbul. Those attacks killed 58 people.

"There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack," said Guler, who described the three slain policemen as "martyred."

The shooting coincided with the visit to Istanbul of top American officials involved in the fight against illegal drugs. Michele Leonhart, acting administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Scott Burns, deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, were attending an anti-drug conference in another part of Istanbul Wednesday morning. It was not clear if they had planned to visit the consulate but visiting U.S. delegations almost always visit diplomatic missions.

Istanbul prosecutor Aykut Cengiz Engin said the attackers were armed with pistols and shotguns. Forensic teams were seen examining a shotgun on the ground.

The consulate occupies an imposing structure on a hill in Istinye, a densely residential neighborhood along the Bosporus Strait on the European side of Istanbul.
A reporter for The Associated Press who visited the consulate last week drove unimpeded past an entrance for the public and parked on a residential street two blocks away. The area directly in front of the entrance was kept clear of vehicles.
Several guards stood in separate locations outside the entrance, but weapons were not on display; Turkish civilians seeking visas and other documents sat at cafes across the street.
---
Associated Press Chief of Bureau in Turkey, Christopher Torchia, and AP Writers Selcan Hacaoglu and Suzan Fraser in Ankara contributed to this report.

Happy Fourth

I realized yesterday as I was leaving work (and telling the guard that I would be back today), that with the exception of my first (when I was in language training), I have worked every 4th of July since joining the Foreign Service.

Overseas, that is a given. The 4th there is really about presenting America to the world. I didn't care for it much, because my idea of celebrating my country's birthday generally involves hamburgers, hotdogs, watermelon and fireworks. Overseas, you wear business attire, often in sweltering heat, and eat generally nasty finger food (was that samon wrapped in fried egg?). But it is cool when the locals tell you "congratulations."

Since coming back to the states, I have still not managed to escape working the 4th, since my job is a 24/7 deal. At least this year, I am on the afternoon shift, so I won't (unlike last year) be listening to the booming fireworks from the national mall while watching them on a two second delay on tv at work.

On a side note, one of the members of GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) put together a list of all of the incentives offered to officers to entice them to serve in Iraq that are NOT available to those whose spouses are same-sex partners. They include:

** continued housing at post of employee’s pre-Iraq assignment
** inclusion in Cost of Living (COLA) allowances
** Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA)
** R&R benefits to travel with the employee
** eligibility to apply for spousal employment in Iraq

And that is aside from the host of other benefits that opposite sex spouses get (like access to health units, evacuations, diplomatic passports, visas....).

So on this July 4th, I just want to thank EVERYONE who serves this country, both in the military and in the Foreign Service, even those who serve while being treated like second-class citizens.

Gay marriage: until deportation do us part?

A friend sent me this article. It was posted yesterday by Reuters. This problem is particularly common among those in the Foreign Service, who like their heterosexual collegues, often meet and fall in love with their spouses while overseas. The problem would be solved by the Uniting American Families Act.

Gay marriage: until deportation do us part?

By Mary Milliken

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Rita Boyadjian wishes she were in a better mood to celebrate the weddings of fellow gay friends after California began legally marrying same-sex couples last month.

But her partner of six years is a German woman whose U.S. student visa runs out soon. Even if they were to legally marry in California, Margot (not her real name) could not stay in the United States because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage for immigration purposes.

This month the well-to-do couple and their nine-month-old baby will move to Germany so they can stay together.

"It's a little bittersweet, I have to be honest," said Boyadjian, 38, a first-generation American who owns a Hollywood entertainment marketing company.

"I am very happy for my friends and I do know a lot of people who are getting married this summer ... but I am sad that while the celebrations are going on, I have to leave."

Gay rights activists estimate that 40,000 binational gay and lesbian couples in the United States are caught in the same legal limbo. A solution, they say, is years away.

When California's Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage in May, becoming the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-sex nuptials, Boyadjian said she was inundated with congratulatory calls from friends believing the couple's problems were solved.

But the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confirms that nothing changes with the California court's ruling.

"The couples are married under state laws in California. The federal government does not recognize these marriages for immigration purposes," USCIS spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan told Reuters.

Binational couples could make matters worse if they wed since getting married signals intent to stay in the United States.

"We cannot get married in California without jeopardizing Margot's future visa applications," said Boyadjian.

Indeed, legal experts are telling these couples not to rush to the altar in California, which, unlike Massachusetts, will marry non-resident gays and lesbians.

'UNFAIR AND UNJUST'

Rachel Tiven, executive director for advocacy group Immigration Equality, is pinning hopes on passage of the Uniting American Families Act in the U.S. Congress "in the next few years." That act would let U.S. citizens in binational same-sex relationships sponsor their foreign-born partners for immigration.

Tiven said gay and lesbian couples have learned to live with their lack of rights because their relationships make it all worth it. But the immigration inequality "can cost you the relationship itself," she said.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said he has seen many gay and lesbian couples like Boyadjian and Margot leave the country to stay together.

"We have a gay brain drain," said Minter.

At least 19 nations worldwide provide some form of immigration benefits to the same-sex partners of citizens and permanent residents, while the U.S. still refuses. They include Canada as well as about a dozen European countries.

Thom Vernon, a California arts educator with two graduate degrees, had to move to Canada to save his relationship with his partner, who is from Zimbabwe. They have since married.

"I am an American citizen, for God's sake," said Vernon from his home in Toronto. "The fact that I can't bring in my partner of nine years is incredibly unfair and unjust."

As a highly educated professional, Vernon has an advantage in seeking residency in another country like Canada, but binational couples of lesser means don't have that option.

One such couple is formed by Dora, a Mexican national who has not been able to secure permanent residency in the United States, and Patty, who was born in Mexico but recently became a U.S. citizen. The lesbian couple resides in the San Francisco Bay Area, plans to marry and asked that their last names not be used due to immigration concerns.

"We do live with the fear of deportation," said Dora, who is now here legally and has a job driving a garbage truck. "We don't know what would happen. It is not like Patty could go to Mexico because she has her daughters here."

Minter can't predict when these gay and lesbian couples will be able to breathe easy, but says he is encouraged by the growing public support for gay rights in the last four years.

"We are seeing the fear dissipate and I think that will eventually spill over to the immigration context," Minter said. "Real families are being torn apart and once it clicks in, that is 90 percent of the battle."

(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix and Martha Sanchez in Los Angeles; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Final Response to the Baldwin Letter

I have been admittedly lax in posting lately. Blame it on senioritis...I'm finishing up my tour, preparing to start my bridge assignment, and still entertaining fantasies of leaving the service and moving back South. I got this response from L to Rep. Tammy Baldwin's letter last week, but I am only just now getting around to reposting it.

The letter is admittedly a little more forward leaning than the last response. Still, the last paragraph is a bit annoying in its almost chiding tone. We are all aware that MOHs include more than just same-sex partners. But in a fair world, same-sex partners would be treated like married spouses. But even those legally married in Massachusetts or California still are not.

Here is the letter:

Dear Ms. Balwin,

Thank you for your letter of May 7 regarding the Department's treatment of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

The Department believes that treatment of Members of Household (MOH) is a matter of great importance. We are currently examining initiatives that would address some of your concerns, taking into account statutory and procedural requirements and any resource considerations. We will keep you informed of our progress in this regard.

Please note that MOH concerns are not limited to the Department's treatment of same sex partners. This is a much broader issue that could affect many Department empluyees, as well as those of other agencies with personnel stationed abroad. Members of Household include all unmarried partners, parents, children, and even siblings who, despite being adults, are reliant on our Foreign Service members to comprise their households. Any change to our regulations must take into account this broader picture.

We hope that this information has been helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey T. Bergner
Legislative Affairs

WP: 4 Americans Die in Attack During Sadr City Meeting

In today's Washington Post:

4 Americans Die in Attack During Sadr City Meeting
State Dept. Governance Specialist Is Among Victims

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service

BAGHDAD, June 24 -- Steven L. Farley, a State Department official working to build up the local government in the Baghdad enclave of Sadr City, knew he and his colleagues had taken a bold step, his son Brett recalled Tuesday.

Farley and other U.S. officials had learned that the Sadr City District Council's acting chairman was loyal to the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and had urged other members of the local advisory group to force the man to resign.

That was last week. On Tuesday, Farley, 57, and three other Americans were killed when a bomb exploded in the District Council building, just minutes before the selection of a new chairman was to begin.

Capitalizing on recent security gains in Iraq, U.S. soldiers and diplomats have waded deep into Iraqi politics in an effort to build moderate and responsive government bodies that they hope will erode the appeal of extremists.

Tuesday's attack, which came a day after an enraged former council member in a small town south of Baghdad fatally shot two U.S. soldiers after a meeting, underscored how perilous that mission remains.

"He was a great father and a patriot," Farley's oldest son, Brett, 31, said in a telephone interview from Crescent, Okla. "He said plainly that he was willing to die doing this. He was willing to die for his country."

U.S. officials did not identify the three other Americans killed in the attack. One was a civilian who worked for the Department of Defense and the two others were soldiers. A third American soldier was wounded.

[...]

Brett Farley said he learned of the events that preceded the bombing from his father. Sadr City District Council member Jawad Attabi and Maj. Ahmed Khalaf Hussein, an Iraqi army official in Sadr City familiar with the investigation, corroborated the account.

The bomb detonated about 9:30 a.m. inside the council building, which is in the southern portion of the vast Shiite area, a stronghold of Sadr's. The district, home to roughly 2 million people, is the launching site for most rockets fired into the Green Zone, the fortified area housing many U.S. and Iraqi officials, and is the nucleus of anti-American sentiment and rhetoric in Iraq.

[...]

The security gains encouraged Farley, his son said. "The floodgates were now open," he recalled his father saying. "He was very enthusiastic."

[...]

Brett Farley said his father embraced his work. In February, he and a colleague traveled with Iraqi council members to the United States to give them a glimpse of local politics in American cities.

Steven Farley was moved by the Iraqi representatives' determination, his son said, noting that several had been assassinated.

"He called them his Iraqi brothers," he said. "These were more than just diplomatic relations."

Tuesday's attack appeared to target Hassan Hussein Shammah, the deputy council chief. He and another council member were wounded in the attack, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

U.S. troops took three men into custody. U.S. military officials found traces of explosives on the men's hands, said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman.

[...]

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Berlin that Tuesday's attack was a reminder of the risks U.S. diplomats are taking in Iraq. She lauded Farley, of Guthrie, Okla.

"He was one of the hundreds of dedicated men and women serving on Provincial Reconstruction Teams, helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild and revitalize their local governments," Rice said.

Farley was deployed to Iraq as a Navy Reserve officer and was hired by the State Department last year. His contract would have been up for renewal next April, his son said.

[...]

You can read the entire piece here.

Sec. Rice: Condolences for Our Colleagues in Iraq

Below is a letter of condolence from Secretary Rice for those who lost thier lives this morning in Iraq.

Condolences for Our Colleagues in Iraq

The attack in Sadr City that killed State Department employee Steven L. Farley, along with two civilian employees from DOD and two military personnel today, is a terrible reminder of the dangers that our colleagues face daily in advancing our critical foreign policy goals.

Steven Farley’s devotion to public service was reflected in his many years of duty in the United States Navy Reserve, and to his hometown of Guthrie, Oklahoma. Farley was mobilized shortly after September 11th, and served with distinction on the staff of the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the western Pacific. Along with thousands of other citizen-patriots, he volunteered to serve in Iraq, joining the State Department in April 2007. He was one of the hundreds of dedicated men and women serving on Provincial Reconstruction Teams, helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild and revitalize their local governments after years of Saddam’s tyranny.

Our heartfelt sympathy and gratitude go out to Steven Farley’s family and his wife Donna, and to the numerous men and women who worked alongside him in Iraq. I have conveyed my sympathy to Ambassador Ryan Crocker; I salute the courage and commitment of all of our colleagues in Iraq.

Sad News Out of Baghdad

This is just in from CNN:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An explosion rocked a municipal building Tuesday in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, killing six Iraqis, two U.S. soldiers and two civilian U.S. Embassy employees, officials said.

The U.S. military said troops detained a suspect in connection with the attack. The person was captured "fleeing the scene and tested positive for explosive residue," the military said.

The embassy official said the American civilians include "a direct hire civilian employee of the Department of State and a Department of Defense civilian employee."

The blast occurred during a meeting of the district advisory council in Sadr City, and U.S. troops were in the area, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

The U.S. military confirmed the deaths, saying an American-led coalition soldier and three council members also were wounded. There have been 4,106 U.S. service members killed since the Iraq war began.

Ten Iraqis were wounded in the blast, an Interior Ministry official said.

The military blamed Iranian-backed militants that U.S. officials call Special Groups for Tuesday's attack.

"This was the fourth meeting of this district council, led by hard-working Iraqis determined to make a difference and set Sadr City off on the right path. Special Groups are afraid of progress and afraid of empowering the people," said Lt. Col. John Digiambatista of the 4th Infantry Division.

The explosion follows a Pentagon report issued Monday that touted a sharp decrease in violence in Iraq in recent months.

Sadr City is the stronghold of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and has seen some of the capital's most intense fighting between Shiite militia members and security forces.

Al-Sadr recently announced his intention to develop a fighting force that would battle U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

A truce was reached last month between the government and al-Sadr's followers, ending weeks of fighting and allowing the Iraqi army to enter Sadr City, but violence persists.

Tuesday's blast comes after gunmen stormed the house of the head of Abu Dsheer City Council on Monday night and fatally shot him.

Mehdi Alwan was an al-Sadr supporter. Abu Dsheer is a Shiite enclave in southern Baghdad's predominantly Sunni Dora district.

The names of the two killed are being withheld pending notification of their families. Our thoughts go out to them.

McCain supports reconstituting USIA

According to a piece in the foreign Policy Association's Public Diplomacy blog, Senator McCain has stated that if elected president, he would reconstitute USIA, the old U.S. Information Agency that was folded into the State Department during the Clinton administration.

In a 2007 op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel, McCain said:

"Dismantling an agency dedicated to promoting America and Americans amounted to unilateral disarmament in the struggle of ideas. Communicating our government’s views on day-to-day issues is what the State Department does. But communicating the idea of America, our purpose, our past and our future is a different task. We need an independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America’s message out in a factual and persuasive manner: managing radio and TV broadcasts to those in need of objective news; establishing American libraries with Internet access throughout the world; sending Americans overseas and sponsoring foreigners’ visits to America for educational and cultural exchanges; and creating a professional corps of public-diplomacy experts who speak the local language and whose careers are spent promoting American values, ideas, culture and education. And it should recruit the best and brightest not just from the ranks of the Foreign Service but from business, academia and the media.”

I wonder what this would mean for those of us who are public diplomacy coned. Would be be forced to leave State and join the new (old) agency? And what of those who are not only public diplomacy coned, but also part of tandem couples? Would we still be able to be assigned overseas with our spouses?

Kind Words

Liam Schartz with the blog Immigration Daily had some kind words to say about this blog. He quoted the piece I wrote in reponse to Dead Men Working's May 23 piece in his June issue of "Consular Corner," writing:

"Quote of the Corner

"Gays and lesbians too continue to love and have faith in this country even though this country STILL does not love and have faith in us. We are STILL expected to ride at the back of the proverbial bus, and I recognize that other minorities are in similar positions. What has happened is not that the country has recognized that discrimination is wrong so much as it has replaced the socially acceptable targets of derision and discrimination. I hope soon though that our country will love and have faith in all of us, and in particular, recognize the greater patriotism is takes to serve a country that does not keep faith with you."

"Digger," a Foreign Service Officer, on the inequities facing gays and lesbians at the State Department. Digger's superb blog can be found here:http://lifeafterjerusalem.blogspot.com/. "

Thanks Liam!

Baghdad, Beirut embassy dissenters to be honored

The piece below is an AP report on the folks getting dissent awards from AFSA (American Foreign Service Association), our employee association (the article calls it our "union," which is not exactly accurate).

I know two of the three folks getting the award. Luke I met recently, but I met Ambassador Feltman some time ago when he had dinner with a group of us going to serve in NEA. He had previously served as Consul General in Jerusalem and was more than willing to share his wisdom and advice on the post. As a newly minted Junior Officer, I appreaciated his being willing to take the time to talk with us. I am glad to see him being honored.

Baghdad, Beirut embassy dissenters to be honored
By MATTHEW LEE - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON --Two American diplomats who successfully challenged policy in Iraq and Lebanon last year are being honored at the State Department Thursday for their courage in speaking out.

Former ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman fought plans to build the new embassy in Beirut in an area controlled by Hezbollah militants. Iraq veteran Rachel Schneller called attention to the mental health care needs of diplomats returning from war zones. They are getting awards for constructive dissent from the American Foreign Service Association.

The association is the union for U.S. diplomats. It says Feltman and Schneller showed exemplary courage, integrity and leadership by taking on their superiors in Washington and changing the department's institutional thinking.

In cable after cable, Feltman argued it was unsafe to construct the new embassy on property that was bought for that purpose in 2004 but had later fallen into the hands of Hezbollah. Higher-ups in Washington were insisting on going ahead with the project. Finally, last July, it was put on hold.

"Ambassador Feltman challenged this decision and repeatedly appealed directly to the highest levels of the State Department," his citation reads. "His willingness to take a stand on principle and to question the conventional wisdom in order to protect his embassy personnel exemplifies the best qualities of constructive dissent."

Schneller, who served in Basra, Iraq and returned to the United States with post-traumatic stress disorder, took on the department for its failure to provide adequate mental health care to diplomats who serve in war zones. In internal memos and interviews, Schneller made the case that they deserved similar treatment to members of the military.

Partly as a result, the department created a new mental health care office and adopted new leave guidelines to deal with stress-related disorders that plague up to 17 percent of diplomats serving in danger posts, according to one survey.

"Despite personal sacrifice, Ms. Schneller showed enormous courage in challenging the system on an issue of life and death importance to career diplomats and their families," her citation reads. "(Her) actions exemplify the qualities of constructive dissent by demonstrating the intellectual courage and integrity to challenge the status quo while working within the system."

The awards are given annually by the union, which is also giving a dissent honor to a third diplomat this year, Luke Zahner, who documented serious human right abuses by the military-backed government while working at the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh. Zahner convinced his superiors to report those abuses, according to his citation.

Only Slightly Off Topic

I just wanted to say congratulations to all the gay and lesbian couples in California who are getting legally married today. Among them is a lesbian couple, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who have been together for 50 years.

M and I were married in our church, the United Church of Christ. As a denomination, UCC supports same-sex marriage, though because it is Congregational, some congregations do not. Our pastor who performed our wedding at United Church of Chapel Hill, is now in California and today is getting legally married to her partner. I wish them all the best, and hope for the day when my religion will no longer be discriminated against and my marriage too will be legal. And for when the Foreign Service will treat same-sex couples who choose to marry the same way they treat heterosexual couples who choose to marry.

WP Op-Ed: Suited for Diplomacy?

Several of my fellow bloggers have been talking about Suited for Diplomacy?, an Op-Ed by James P. DeHart in Sunday's Washington Post. DeHart is a Foreign Service Officer heading to a PRT in Afghanistan.

DeHart says:
"Today, we're seeing not only transformational diplomacy but also the transformation of diplomacy. Foreign Service officers emerging from war zones are in many cases being promoted ahead of their peers. This is understandable, but as they rise up the chain and gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more "traditional" diplomacy may find themselves relegated to an even slower track.

WhirlView wondered why DeHart would have been at Georgetown before the assignment rather than in language training, and wondered if the answer to her question was...

"...contained in his observation that State Department assignments to war zones are fast tracks up the career ladder and that as war zone vets “rise up the chain and (presumably) gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more ‘traditional” diplomacy’” may find themselves second class citizens?

I’m not sure I buy that argument. At least until I see the statistics. I would love to see the numbers that demonstrate that Iraq and Afghanistan State Department veterans are, in fact, getting promoted faster than their peers. If someone can point or e-mail them to me – I’d be delighted. Since this is becoming an increasingly divisive issue in the Foreign Service - based from what I can tell primarily on corridor gossip – a systematic, fact-based, transparent study should be an imperative. But maybe I've just missed it.

I don't think tours in war zones should be a ticket to the fast track. I have already witnessed people who had trouble getting promoted narrowly avoid TICing out of service by doing a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes, I think people who volunteer to serve there are entitled to the money and the choice of onward assignment. And yes, if they do a great job there, they should get promoted. But it shouldn't be a place for officers who are about to be forced from the service to go to reset their clock. That does a disservice to the service, one we will suffer from for generations.

I do agree with WhirlView though that we need a transparent study. I think the transparency of this year's prime candidate exercize is part of the reason there has been less wailing and gnashing of teeth over getting the "you are particularly well qualified" email. I also think identifying potential candidates earlier, so they can use the bid list to their advantage in terms of linking assignments, etc., is helping the process. (That, and telling us about it all BEFORE telling the press.)

DeHart also says:
"In recent years, the number of Foreign Service assignments categorized as "unaccompanied" -- that is, too dangerous for families -- has surged from 200 to 900. If the trend continues, new recruits may no longer view the Foreign Service as a career but as something to do for a few years before settling down to real life -- a bit like the Peace Corps, minus the peace. In a recent survey by the American Foreign Service Association, 44 percent of active Foreign Service officers said that "developments in the last few years" have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.

Oh well. Maybe the State Department leadership will conclude that a new kind of diplomat is needed anyway, that a liberal arts degree isn't the best preparation for someone who has to learn to live with mortar fire. If so, will the diplomat of the future be just a little less cerebral and a little more likely to salute than to offer constructive dissent?"

Diplopundit envisions the following result:

"Let me put myself in the shoes of a candidate who joins the Service at 25 after Grad School. With three overseas assignment and possibly one hard language training, I could be out of the Service after 10 years with marketable skills. At 35, I could start a second career, get married and start a family. And I won't grow thin hair agonizing over tenure, promotion or directed assignments.

I bet this would also solve the problem of Foreign Service spouse employment! Either I don't get married until I am out of the Service or I get married during one of my tours. But either way, ten years would not severely jeopardize the career and retirement prospects of my trailing spouse or partner.

I wonder if the State Department leadership has a table top exercise for this scenario.

I wonder that too.

We're Here! We're Queer! We're in the State Department!

Those in DC might be aware that Saturday was DC's 33rd annual Gay Pride parade. GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) participated in the parade and had a booth in the festival the next day.

There were less than two dozen of us who marched in the steady rain, but I think all of us were filled with pride when we passed the announcers booth as they called the name of the organization and said "On the front lines representing you and the country's diplomatic interests in embassy's and consulates around the world."

That's what we are here for.

Backlist: Identity

Backlist has made the difficult decision to leave the service. I struggle with some of the same issues she does and I wish her luck. You can read her entire post here.


... This was the most difficult decision I’ve ever made. After ten years, this job has become who I am. It’s not as if I’ve been bringing work home. It’s that work is home. We live diplomacy. Our friends are diplomats. Everything we do is what country we’re assigned to. When September 11 happened, I was in Africa. Africans provided solace and other American diplomats provided the tiny circle of grieving. That night I watched French television broadcast the same shot of planes and buildings over and over with a woman who I am friends with, was friends with, will always be friends with in part because she sat with me and shared my shock. She has since left the Service also, and I’m sure is happier for it. When I scrubbed Anthrax from the walls of our little mailroom in a bright green bio-hazard suit, identified a friend three days in the river in a hot African morgue, hid under my desk as molotov cocktails shattered on the walls and flames licked American flags, I took those feelings home, assuming I’d be better for it.

But here’s the bottom line: I’m not better for it, I’m worse. I left for DC ten and a half years ago energetic, normal-sized, happy. All the Foreign Service has given me is weight, pain, bruises in my mind, heart and soul. I’ve spent half that time trying to get myself back; to find the woman I recognize in the mirror and convince her to stay. When I stopped getting glimpses of her, I knew it was time to go.

Sometime this summer, I’ll have my last day. I don’t know when it will be yet. I don’t have a job, although I’m working very, very hard to get one. I’m sure that wherever that job is, I’ll find a missing person: me.

Baldwin Discusses Gay Bills in Congressional Limbo

GLBT News Summary for Progressives - Ray's List also covered Wednesday's discussion.

-Baldwin Discusses Gay Bills in Congressional Limbo

The only open lesbian in the U.S. House of Representatives is predicting that in the next session of Congress, bills related to employment non-discrimination and hate crimes will be more successful than legislation aimed at repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) made the comments today at a Center for American Progress forum geared toward highlighting the importance of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would grant the partners of gay federal employees the same benefits that are available tothe spouses of straight counterparts. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) joined Baldwin in the panel discussion. Other speakers at the event included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, who resigned his 26-year career as a foreign service officer last year in protest of federal employment practices. Baldwin said she is "very optimistic" that ENDA and a hate crimes measure would pass Congress next session, particularly if Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has supported these initiatives, take the White House.

The event was covered by Daily Motion as well, and this site has video of the discussion.

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

We Have to Start Somewhere

The Religious Action Center for Reform Judiasm covered Wednesday's panel discussion on the Domestic Partnership and Benefits Act at the Center for American Progress .

"We've Got to Start Somewhere"

By Kate Bigam

In a bipartisan panel yesterday at the Center for American Progress, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) conveyed their strong support for providing Americans in same-sex relationships with domestic partner benefits. The event also featured former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Michael Guest, former U.S. Ambassador to Romania and this country's first openly gay ambassador. Guest resigned last year when he decided the Foreign Service's "inequities were just too strong" in the arena of discrimination against GLBT employees.

Smith's end of the discussion was particularly interesting, especially when an audience member pointed out the proverbial elephant in the room: If Smith is so supportive of GLBT equality, why did he favor 2006's Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and which was vigorously opposed by supporters of the GLBT community? Smith responded passionately, insisting that although his religious beliefs couldn't allow him to support same-sex marriage, he is committed to ensuring GLBT equality in terms of opportunity and benefits (he also supports adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes laws). What's more, Smith seemed genuinely optimistic that the legislative tides are changing in favor of equality, citing a "change in the hearts and minds of Senators on LGBT issues" and the increasingly popular view amongst members of Congress that providing domestic partner benefits, at least, is "a simple issue of fairness and equality."

Despite our drastically different beliefs on the issue of marriage equality, I very much respect Sen. Gordon Smith's comments on this subject, to which he has clearly given much thought. Ensuring domestic partner benefits is one of many crucial steps that will ultimately lead to full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people - including marriage equality. And we've got to start somewhere.

Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees

I found this today on the Center for American Progress's video blog, SEEPROGRESS. In addition to the text below, you can watch some video highlights from yesterday's panel discussion.

In 1997 President Bill Clinton nominated Jim Hormel to be the first openly gay Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a 20-month politically divisive battle, Secretary Albright swore in Ambassador Hormel. Two years later, in 2001, President Bush nominated Michael Guest to be ambassador to Romania. While there was no battle for confirmation, what both ambassadors had to cope with was an inequitable system that treated them and their committed partners differently under the law. Federal Employees, whether in the foreign service or working in a regional office of HHS, are denied the ability to purchase domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 2521 and H.R. 4838) would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for same sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits. By offering health benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, employment practices in the federal government would be in line with those of Americas largest and most successful corporations, including AT&T, General Motors, and Raytheon. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen Gordon Smith, Rep Tammy Baldwin and others appeared at a June 11, 2008 event at the Center for American Progress (CAPAF) to discuss the current policy and the future.

Domestic partners discriminated against

This event took place today at the Center for American Progress and was covered by Talk Radio News.

Domestic partners discriminated against

The fact that the U.S. government covers the travel cost of a family pet yet does not cover that of a domestic partner was brought up at a discussion held at the Center for American Progress (CAP). Unlike spouses of married foreign service personnel, domestic partners are ineligible for medical benefits, life insurance and are not even permitted to attend a two-day safety training course which the State Department offers to spouses.

Digger comments:
Members of Household are now allowed to attend that course, the Security Overseas Seminar.

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, spoke during the discussion, recollecting when James Hormel became the first openly gay ambassador appointed by President Clinton to Luxembourg in 1999. Albright also considered former ambassador Michael Guest’s resignation as ambassador to Romania a big loss to U.S. foreign policy. Guest resigned from his post because his partner was unable to receive the same benefits that spouses of his straight colleagues were offered. Albright wondered how America could expect itself to be a leader in promoting civil liberties when it still discriminated its own people.

Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), also speaking at the discussion, pointed out that to an employee, health benefits are second in importance only to salary. Smith described how, in order to keep the best and brightest Americans working in the public sector, equal health benefits should be afforded to all. Also, Smith discussed his theory that a key to reducing health care costs is to widen the pool of those eligible, even if the “paradigms of families get shifted”.

Digger comments:
I was at this event today. I was impressed with all of the speakers, though naturally I would have preferred that Senator Gordon Smith also support gay marriage, which he does not. He is a strong proponent of religious freedom (he sponsored the Smith Amendment, which requires Russia to prove it is not disciminiating against religious groups there before it can get any money from the U.S.), and yet he supports denying religions the right to decide what constitutes a marriage. My church, United Church of Christ, endorses and performs same-sex marriage. M and I were married in our church.

At the presentation, the VP of the center said that there are an estimated 216,000 GLBT folks in the Federal government. And John Podesta, the president of the center and Clinton's former chief of staff, said the cost to give benefits to us would be about $260 million over ten years, a drop in the bucket compared with the total federal budget. Eighty-seven state and local governments already offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Both Baldwin and Smith said they did not expect to put the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act before Congress until the next administration because they feared a presidential veto.

Ambassador Guest finished off the event. He said of his retirement: "the career I loved at first sight had come into conflict with the partner who I had also loved at first sight." He said he had expected more of Secretary Rice and that "this is still discriminatary and it deserves no place in the institution the Secretary leads."

DMW: Why We Don't Soldier Up

Dead Men Working has a comment on the Washington Times editorial that Consul-at-Arms commented on. DMW says:

The Foreign Service is not the military. And comparisons to the military are ill-informed.

It is unfortunate that our leadership has not stepped up to clarify that fact.

It is appalling when the second largest newspaper in our nation's capitol is incapable of telling the difference.

DMW explains in the piece why such comparisons are ill-informed. You can read his entire piece here.

A Few Good Men (and women)

Consul-at-Arms has an excellent response to an offensive and biased editorial from the Washington Times. The people in the Foreign Service deserve better.

Washington Times Editorial: A few (hundred) good men (and women)

Monday, June 2, 2008

The Foreign Service has not seen great numbers of officers forced to a war zone since the Vietnam war. But the prospect of such "directed assignments" looms today for Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, too few Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) have volunteered for these challenging and dangerous positions. An estimated 300 vacancies remain for 2009 - and someone needs to fill them. "Soldier up." Or hit the private sector.

CAA responds:
The really funny thing here is that throwaway phrase "300 vacancies remain" that the writer puts out there without explaining that there are 300 vacancies every year, because they are one-year assignments, and also that they just now beginning to identify candidates to fill them. The jobs aren't even available to be bid upon, so it's hardly as if no one's stepped forward.

Every single position the Foreign Service has fielded in Iraq since 2003 has been filled by a volunteer. Given the small size of the Foreign Service, re-filling those 300 plus jobs each and every year with qualified officers is itself a non-trivial problem, but so far we've been able to pull it off.

[...]

Recall that the striped-pants folks partially revolted in November when the prospect of forced tours first emerged. Service in Iraq is "a potential death sentence," one veteran FSO famously complained to Harry K. Thomas Jr., executive secretary of the Department of State and head of the Foreign Service. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now."

CAA responds:
And before the CPA was replaced by the first re-opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad, way back in 2004 and while I was still in uniform serving in Iraq, I made the exact same evaluation as another officer reportedly did last year, that at any other U.S. embassy in a security environment like Baghdad's, they'd be evacuating staff and preparing to close up the whole place. Of course, the national mission in Iraq takes precedence over that, but the point remains perfectly valid.

You can read CAA's entire post here.

AFSA responds to Washington Times cartoon

Below is an AFSA letter that appears in the June 3 Washington Times.

The Washington Times
Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Page A-18

Sufficient Volunteers

Your Monday editorial cartoon showing a group of U.S. Foreign Service members holding signs saying "Heck no, we don't want to go" [to serve in the war on terror] does not reflect reality.

First, by representing the Foreign Service as being made up only of white males, the cartoon's conception of our nation's career diplomats appears to be stuck in the year 1950.

Second, the cartoon also misrepresents recent historical fact. All Foreign Service members currently serving in Iraq are volunteers. All Foreign Service members who will rotate to Iraq this summer are volunteers. All Foreign Service members who have served in Iraq since 2003 have been volunteers.

No Foreign Service member has ever had to be ordered to serve in Iraq. The same is true for our diplomats serving in Afghanistan and the dozen other locations designated by the Department of Defense as being combat zones.

The State Department is in the process of selecting Foreign Service volunteers to rotate to Iraq in summer 2009. I am confident that, once again, sufficient volunteers will step forward. I will be one of them.

John K. Naland
President
American Foreign Service Association

Sad News from Jerusalem

I learned today that one of my FSNs in Jerusalem died this morning.

I have mentioned him before, though not by name. He was 63 years old and had worked for the American Consulate since 1968. He worked with me as a fraud investigator when I was the fraud prevention manager. He seemed to delight in catching people trying to pass fake documents, whether they were Palestinian or Israeli.

He put up with a lot to serve our government. His salary supported 14 members of his family who were unable to work because the Palestinian economy makes it so difficult to find jobs. The Israelis at the checkpoint knew him, and yet every morning, they made this older man who had worked for the U.S. government for half his life, take off his shoes, shirt and belt before letting him pass throught the checkpoint. It was humiliating for him, and yet he endured it so he could support his family.

He always said he would die at that checkpoint.

This morning he did.

TWIST: About those "qualifications"...

The Way I See Things apparently also received a recruitment email. TWIST has some comments on being "particularly well qualified."

I'm Not Really as Qualified as I Claimed I Was

[...]

Let's start with the big news: the Department has once again launched the bidding season with a call for volunteers for Iraq. This time they've been a bit more forthcoming, and have sent letters to prospective "volunteers" informing them what jobs they'll be asked to volunteer for. Perhaps finding it out this way, rather than via the Washington Post is the reason that reaction to the letters has been much more muted than it was last year. Perhaps. I'm skeptical myself. My informal survey of the lucky volunteers thus far has revealed a surprising number of people who have already done hardship tours. (Actually, it's not surprising at all---one of the "criteria" for the positions is that you have served in an NEA post in the past. Most NEA posts are hardships.) So building upon this observation, I speculate that there is less wailing and gnashing of teeth this year because these are people who were under no illusion that they could spend their entire careers in posts without hardship or danger.

[A brief aside: it's not actually an illusion that one can spend his or her entire career without serving in a hardship or danger post, despite what our human resources bureau keeps telling us. In fact, since returning to Washington, I've been presented with no small number of role models who not only survive the foreign service without doing their "fair share," but who actually thrive. Click here and here for just two examples.]

Anyway, back to Iraq volunteers...while the reaction has been muted, there has been some. The one or two people I've heard of who are not at hardship posts and have been deemed "qualified" have responded with the plaintive cry that they are not, in fact, qualified for the assignment! This was a consistent theme last year, and one that I've been thinking about a lot. Yes, I suppose that people who already have Arabic and area experience are qualified for these jobs. On the other hand, how many of our colleagues stood up in A-100 when handed a flag and declared, "oh no, I can't go to [fill in the blank]! I'm not qualified!" Better yet, how many people, when they joined the foreign service and were told they would have to be worldwide available, responded, "well, okay, but I'm really only qualified to serve in Canada, because that's the only place I've visited and I only speak English"?

[...]

I suspect that the very same people loudly declaring that they should not be sent to Iraq because they are not qualified, would not have the same concerns if the Department suddenly decided to direct them to Europe or Australia.

One could argue that Iraq is a special case. It is a war zone, and, thus, requires more experience than an Embassy in Western Europe. As someone who received one of those "you're qualified, so you're volunteered" letters though, let me assure you that I have no special training in war fighting (or surviving). If Iraq is a special case, nothing in my career as a generalist, including my service in NEA, has especially prepared me for it. I have no background in Iraq and/or its politics. I imagine I'll learn. I am a generalist, afterall, and am supposed to be able to do my job anywhere in the world.

It was really annoying last year to hear some of my colleagues scream and moan and insist that they shouldn't go for any number of reasons. To me that sounded like, "not me, take so and so instead." If the policy of sending so many people to Iraq, including against their will, is bad, it's bad; there's no need for foreign service officers to throw each other to the wolves to limit the personal impact of that bad policy. Some of the outcry last year left a very bad taste in my mouth as I watched at least one A-100 classmate loudly and publicly proclaim that her life was so much more precious than everyone else's and, as a result, it was absurd that the Department would even consider sending her. In the end, they didn't. She has now moved on to complaining about other things, like the inconvenience of flights to her next (non-Iraqi) post.

You can read the entire post here.