Overseas Posts: Central to Success in Public Diplomacy

My CDO sent this to me yesterday and I thought it might be of interest to those of you who are PD-coned or hoping to become PD officers.

Overseas Posts: Central to Success in Public Diplomacy
Vol. II Issue 5, May 2010
By William A. Rugh

Since 9/11 there has been a proliferation of writing about public diplomacy, but very rarely does any of it focus on what U.S. public diplomacy professionals actually do at diplomatic missions around the world. The many books, articles and studies have centered their attention almost entirely on the Washington end of the story. Why? Few Americans know anything about what a U.S. embassy does, or have ever been inside one. Our media does not report on embassy operations. Similarly, think tanks and organizations issued more than 30 reports on public diplomacy, consulting very few people who have lived and worked abroad, keeping it Washington-centric.(1) Even scholars tend to share that focus. (2) Thus, most of the literature leaves out an important half of the story.

Ignorance of what goes on at our embassies abroad leads to another misunderstanding, namely that most Americans have come to believe that public diplomacy is all about leadership in Washington. It is true that the election of President Obama has improved the American image abroad. (3) His speeches in Egypt and Ghana and town hall meetings in other countries present a sharp contrast to the style of President Bush, who did not seem much interested in foreign public opinion and preferred a unilateralist approach to the world. Public diplomacy practitioners know that listening carefully and engaging in a dialogue shows respect for others' opinions and concerns, as it helps shape our communications better. This is precisely why practitioners applaud President Obama's style of speaking not just to heads of state but taking the trouble to address ordinary citizens in foreign countries. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also used town hall meetings abroad to good effect. Since becoming secretary of state she has travelled nearly 300,000 miles, visiting 54 countries. She has done public appearances on many of her trips, for example last February 15 when she was in Doha, Qatar she had a public exchange at a meeting with students at Carnegie Mellon University's Doha campus. Yet, a successful public diplomacy overall effort cannot be carried out only by a few senior people in Washington. Foreign commentators have begun to criticize the President's foreign policy pledges because they have not led to immediate solutions to the problems he addressed and that foreign audiences care about.(4) American officials must now cope with the expectations that the President raised. More importantly, concerns vary from one country to another, requiring different answers that can be best addressed by people on the ground who are well versed in local issues.

Many people do not realize that there is a considerable difference between what Washington does in public diplomacy and what field posts do. Officials in Washington decide global policies, but when Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) at field posts explain and support them in conversations with local audiences, they cannot simply repeat guidance fed to them by officials at the State Department in Washington and end it there. They must elaborate, within limits, bearing in mind local concerns and interests. In other words, they try to translate Washington's guidance into arguments and rationales that will resonate with the local population. This does not mean that the FSO will ignore policy guidance or go beyond it in a way that distorts it, but nobody will listen to him or her parrot only what a Washington official says.

An FSO must of course consider every public statement made by a senior official in Washington as official policy to be taken as guidance, but those statements are more often than not crafted with an American audience in mind, and consequently do not always address the concerns of a foreign audience. Moreover, the FSO is required to represent all of America, not just the administration in power, so the task is broader than policy advocacy.

Even the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, whose job it is to supervise the U.S. government's communication with foreign publics, tends to see the world from a Washington perspective rather than a field perspective. For example, when Under Secretary Judith McHale testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10, 2010, she remarked that the Department of State must do a better job of "understanding the opinions and attitudes of foreign publics." While she is correct, her vision(5) consists of growing the federal bureaucracy and creating a new "market research" staff at the State Department. Public diplomacy professionals would argue that one of the most important tasks they face when working at an embassy abroad is trying hard to "understand the [local] opinions and attitudes." They usually spend most of their working day doing just that, following local media reporting and editorials for clues on local thinking, talking daily with their contacts and with local hires, and keeping their finger firmly on the local pulse. A public diplomacy effort can only succeed if the American and local staff at the U.S. embassy devote constant attention to the task of following local opinion.

A basic requirement for success in a public diplomacy effort in any country is that the PD practitioners must spend much of their time engaging personally with a wide variety of people in the local society. As President Kennedy's U.S. Information Agency director Edward R. Murrow famously said, it is "the last three feet" that count, meaning the most important link in any communication is personal face-to-face interaction. He was aware of that important truth even though he had been a professional broadcaster who communicated mostly by radio and television. Only through personal interaction can the PD professional really understand local concerns and views of America, and personal interaction is the best way to counter misunderstandings about the United States. This is crucial as Americans and foreign audiences usually see things differently. For example, President Bush's policy after 9/11 focused on counter-terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and promoting democracy. Foreign audiences had other priorities. Bush was fond of saying that 9/11 "changed everything;" that may have been true for Americans, but it was not necessarily so to the rest of the world. Public diplomacy professionals with field experience also know that local conditions hugely influence the programs they carry out. In some countries we can use the full range of public diplomacy instruments, but in Afghanistan and Iraq the violence and poor security conditions severely limit what they can achieve. In highly wired societies like Japan and South Korea, public diplomacy professionals can use media such as satellite TV, and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. In some developing countries the public does not have similar access to such tools and many people do not even have a dependable access to electricity, so other means must be used. Judith McHale calls for the expanded use of new media, and most American commentators on public diplomacy concur with this approach, seeing how well this works in America; but it is a mistake to assume the same works everywhere.
The literature contains many inaccuracies about public diplomacy field operations. The reports mentioned above argue that public diplomacy should be the purview of the public sector. Jan Melissen, Professor of Diplomacy at Antwerp University in Belgium, wrote that non-state actors are "extremely agile and capable of mobilizing support at a speed that is daunting for rather more unwieldy foreign policy bureaucracies." (6) FSOs who have served abroad would dispute that description. They are keenly aware of the work of Americans representing companies and NGOs abroad, is simply not comparable at all with the work of an American official.

Kristin Lord, another scholar, posited in a report that American public diplomacy be reformed by creating a new non-governmental organization called "USA World Trust" that would do better than the government. The report stated this organization would, among other things, create exchange programs to bring foreign university professors, journalists, NGO representatives and government officials to the United States; it would send American experts abroad on speaking tours; it would understand foreign opinion through focus groups; and it would sponsor translations of American books into foreign languages. (7) Those are all worthwhile public diplomacy projects, but the problem with this report is that all of those activities are already carried out by American diplomats around the world. They have been standard tools in the official U.S. government effort for decades, a fact that this report fails to acknowledge.

If we want a successful public diplomacy effort, we need to devote more attention to the support and development of public diplomacy specialists in the Foreign Service, the so-called "PD cone." Sometimes FSOs from other cones, such as political or economic, are assigned to PD positions at embassies abroad, for purposes of their cross-training, but this practice has been carried too far and it has undermined the professionalism of our public diplomacy effort because FSOs with no experience in public diplomacy are given public diplomacy tasks. Diplomacy and public diplomacy are best learned on the job, and the best PD officers tend to be the officers who have had the most actual experience doing public diplomacy. Since the USIA-State merger in 1999, this specialization has been diluted by too much cross-training and that trend should be reversed.

Only a small number of people writing today have pointed out the central importance of field operations to public diplomacy. (8) It remains a badly neglected aspect of the subject. If we are to improve public diplomacy outreach, we should pay heed to our diplomats' work at embassies all over the world.

(1) Susan B. Epstein and Lisa Mages, "Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past recommendations", Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, October 31, 2005
(2) For example one excellent scholar has written a superb book on USIA that pays very little attention to field operations: Nicholas J. Cull, The Cold War and the United States information Agency, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
(3) Pew Research Center, "Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around the World", research report July 23, 2009, http://pewglobal.og/reports
(4) Testimony of Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March 4, 2010, http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=57624
(5) http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2010/McHaleTestimony100310p.pdf
(6) Jan Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy", in Jan Melissen, Ed, The New Public Diplomacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, p.24.
(7) Kristin Lord, "Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Washington DC: Brookings, November 2008, pp.18-23.
(8) For example Wiliam P. Kiehl, "The Case for Localized Public Diplomacy", in Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, Eds. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, New York: Routledge 2009, pp.212-24, and Mike Canning, "The Overseas Post: The Forgotten Element of our Public Diplomacy", Washington DC: Public Diplomacy Council, 2008, www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/uploads/canningoverseasposts

William A. Rugh is the Edward R. Murrow Visiting Professor of Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Tufts University.

He was a United States Foreign Service Officer 1964-1995. He held positions abroad for the U.S. Information Agency in Cairo, Riyadh and Jeddah, and in Washington as Assistant Director of USIA for the Near East and South Asia. He also held presidential appointments as the United States ambassador to Yemen and ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, and a State Department appointment as Deputy Chief of Mission in Syria.

He was President and CEO of the educational NGO AMIDEAST 1995-2003, that manages educational programs in the Arab world.
He holds a PhD in international relations from Columbia University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

He taught U.S. Middle East Policy and Public Diplomacy at Fletcher 1984-86 and he has taught Public Diplomacy there since 2008.
He is the author of "American Encounters with Arabs: the Soft Power of U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East" and other books and articles on public diplomacy. He has also published books, articles and opeds on American diplomacy, Arab media and US-Arab relations.

He is a member of the following boards of directors: AMIDEAST (executive committee), the American University in Cairo, the Middle East Policy Council (vice chair), the Public Diplomacy Council (executive committee), the Suffolk University International Advisory Board, and the Arab Media and Society Editorial Board.

He is married to Dr. Andrea Rugh, an author and consultant. He has three sons: David Rugh of Yorba Linda, CA, Nicholas Rugh of Menlo Park, CA, and Douglas Rugh of Pocassett MA. His winter home is in Garrett Park MD, and his summer home (June-October) is in Woods Hole, MA

Do You?

Yesterday was fun. I got to meet a few of the new FSOs (and even better, some of the new blogger FSOs!) while they were standing in the Exhibit Hall in the never-ending badge line (and you thought the waiting part was done once you started A-100!).

While I was down there, I had a discussion with one person about Facebook. He was contemplating deleting his FB account. Apparently they hit the new folks with the DS "blogging/social networking is bad" lecture on day one now...but they couple it with the HR "blogging/social networking is awesome" lecture. Mixed message much?

Anyway, I later had a similar discussion with a colleague in my office later in the day. She is a self-avoided FB/blog/Twitter/Link-In hater. She refuses to do any of it.

You might have gathered, I feel quite the opposite. I am not sure I am a first adopter, but I am pretty darned close (though I am just NOT getting an iPad. Not doing it. Even if the videos of the cats playing piano on it make it look pretty cool). Obviously I blog. I also FB, Tweet (both personally (as Digger) and for GLIFAA) and have a linked-in account (I don't use it much but I see the value of using it as a PD officer at post). I even have a myspace account...but I never use it. But blogs and FB, it would be pretty safe to say I am an addict. Wonder how I found all those blogs on my blogroll? I search the blogosphere every day, usually twice.

There is probably a twelve-step program for this somewhere.

In my defense, at least where FB is concerned, it really is a great tool for those of us with friends around the world to stay in touch. My good friend from Jerusalem who is now in Afghanistan? I don't have to worry when something blows up there because she will put up a status update saying she is okay.

Anyway, I am curious. Which forms of social media do you use? Are you a casual user or an addict? What do you like/hate about them? And for those who are recent to the FS, what are your thoughts in terms of keeping/ditching your accounts. With the one person who was considering deleting his, I argued for him keeping it...because how else am I going to follow him as he goes around the world?!

Welcome to the 153rd!

The 153rd A-100 starts today, and to celebrate, I have moved the blogs written by members of this class out of the future FSO blogroll and into the blogroll of FSO blogs. So a hearty welcome to:

Devonnaire

from the back of beyond

Herding Cats

Livingroom Friends

Pantsuits and Pearls

and

Worldwide Availability

Also, I got an email from an FSO from the 152nd who said, after reading the poists and comments here and elsewhere about going public, that he had decided to make his blog public as well. So I invite you to check out Fawda Munathema.

The new class will be in The Building today. If you see them, say hello and welcome to the Foreign Service. We are all made better when good people join us!

In case you are interested...

And you should be, because it is a damn good story, here is part II of NoDoubleStandard's How I Stumbled Into the Foreign Service.

Secretary's Remarks at the AFSA Memorial Plaque Ceremony

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Remarks at the American Foreign Service Association Memorial Plaque Ceremony

May 7, 2010
Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Susan. And thanks to all of you for being here and joining us for this occasion of remembrance and gratitude. I’m pleased that Administrator Dr. Raj Shah and other leaders of our foreign policy community can be with us today.

Let me start with a message from President Obama: “I send greetings to all those celebrating Foreign Affairs Day 2010 at the Department of State and serving around the world. Today, we recognize the many Foreign Service professionals who advance our national interests through their work. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank you for your dedication to building a better, more secure, democratic, and prosperous world.”

We know that your work does not come without sacrifice and danger. And today, we solemnly remember three Americans who lost their lives this past year. Terry Barnich, a dedicated, very smart professional was returning from a water treatment facility inspection in Fallujah, Iraq when he was killed by a roadside bomb on May 25th, 2009. Terry arrived in Iraq in 2007, and although he was only scheduled to be there for 11 months, he stayed longer to continue helping the Iraqi people rebuild their own nation.

The January 12th earthquake claimed the life of Victoria DeLong in Haiti. She was a Foreign Service officer with 27 years of service, and she was well known and well liked by all with whom she had worked over those years. And in Haiti, she was particularly committed to strengthening the bonds and deepening understanding between the American and Haitian people.

Dale Gredler was a professional USAID employee. He was known by his colleagues to be so dedicated to his work. He leaves behind these two beautiful young daughters. And I hope that they know that he served his country by trying to help other people have a chance for their own children to have lives of fulfillment and success. He died of cardiac failure on January 27th while traveling from his post in Kazakhstan to obtain treatment back home here in America.

Terry, Victoria, and Dale join the ranks of those before them on the memorial plaque. And their commitment to caring about others beyond themselves, their families, and those who were close by – in fact, taking their training and their commitment to the entire world, to improve it, to make it safer, to give others the same chance we enjoy here in the United States. That will truly be their lasting legacy.

I think we know what a debt of gratitude we owe to all who serve. And we know, too, that each and every one of them will have family members and colleagues who remember them. But certainly for us here at the State Department, we will remember them as those who went on our behalf, who worked tirelessly to make a difference. And I want to especially express our condolences and our gratitude to their family members because when someone goes off to serve in the State Department or USAID, a family serves as well. The family may not be there physically – although very often, it is possible – but the family is there in sprit, supporting that work. Sometimes family members say, “You want to do what? You want to join what? You want to go where?” But we’ve all learned that when someone has that in their heart and soul, to serve, it’s better just to send them with Godspeed and to be grateful that they are doing the work that they love.

So when we think about these three whom we’ve lost, I just want to say a word about the families. When Victoria was not organizing cultural exchanges, she was volunteering at a Haitian orphanage. She loved children. Her sister Rita, her niece Jennifer, and her brother-in-law Mike are here with us. And I want them to know that we will carry on her commitment on behalf of children everywhere to make sure that they have that chance to fulfill their God-given potential.

Dale’s wife, Caroline, and young daughters Allison and Sarah are with us today, as is his mother, Alice, his sister, Debbie, and other members of the Gredler family. They know better than anyone how committed he was to public service. One of Dale’s old embassy softball buddies from Jakarta sent me a note recounting a conversation they had shortly after the birth of Dale’s second daughter. Dale wrote, “I am the luckiest man alive.” A few days ago, their team, the Jakarta Beerhunters – (laughter) – gathered for a reunion and entered the Southeast Asia Slow-Pitch Softball Tournament. And they all wore Dale’s old number, 73, and they ended each game by cheering “3-2-1, Dale!”

Well, that’s the kind of passion that Terry Barnich would have recognized because, in the best tradition of our volunteer nation, he left his established career and community to help the Iraqis rebuild. His brother-in-law, Jack, and his sister, Rochelle, and a number of his friends are with us today. What an incredible example of someone who got up and went to serve. And he is so well remembered in Iraq by Americans and Iraqis alike.

So these three talented and brave Americans represent the best of our country and this Department and USAID. By adding their names to the wall today, we recommit ourselves to honor their memories and carry on their work. And we thank them profoundly for their service. Thank you all, and may God bless their memory.

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton and I will now unveil the plaque.

(The plaque is unveiled.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Victoria J. DeLong, Dale J. Gredler, Terrence L. Barnich. Now please join us in a moment of silence.

(A moment of silence is observed.)

In Memory

AFSA Memorial Plaque Ceremony

I got the following email today from AFSA:

"The AFSA Memorial Plaque Ceremony, which honors Foreign Service personnel who have lost their lives while serving their country in the line of duty or under other inspirational circumstances, will be held on Foreign Affairs Day, Friday, May 7 at 10:35 a.m., in the C St. lobby of the State Department in front of the west plaque. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to preside over the ceremony. AFSA President Susan R. Johnson will open the ceremony with a brief welcome and Secretary Clinton will present a message from President Barack Obama and pay her respects to the families of the three employees whose names we will be adding to the plaque, bringing the total to 234. Those being honored this year are:

VICTORIA J. DELONG
Victoria J. Delong, 57, a 27-year veteran of the Foreign Service who served as the Cultural Affairs Officer at Embassy Port-au-Prince, was killed on Jan. 12 when her home collapsed during the earthquake. Posted in Haiti since February 2009, she had fallen in love with the country’s people and culture and called this tour the highlight of her diplomatic career. In addition to Haiti, she served in El Salvador, Costa Rica, Papua New Guinea, Germany, Australia, Kuala Lumpur, the Philippines, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mauritius.

DALE J. GREDLER
Dale J. Gredler, 43, a Foreign Service Officer at the United States Agency for International Development passed away January 17, 2010, after suffering from cardiac arrest en route from his post in Kazakhstan to receive medical treatment in the United States. He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Republic of the Philippines in the 1990s and then worked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency before transferring to USAID in 2001. Dale and his family served at USAID posts in Jakarta, Indonesia, where he was instrumental in reconstruction efforts following the devastating tsunami, as well as at the USAID Central Asian Republics Mission in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

TERRENCE L. BARNICH
Terrence L. Barnich, 56, was serving on a limited non-career Civil Service appointment as Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office in Baghdad, Iraq when he was killed by an improvised explosive device on Memorial Day, May 25, 2009. Originally scheduled to work in Iraq for 11 months following his placement there in 2007, he decided to stay longer and continue to help the Iraqi nation in its reconstruction efforts. Throughout the course of his career, Terry served as General Counsel to the Governor of Illinois, Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission and he co-founded a nationally recognized and highly respected consulting firm, New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc. Terry was recognized as an authority on utility and political issues. Sadly, an IED claimed his life.

The solemn ceremony offers us an opportunity to remember and honor our fallen colleagues who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and to remind us of the extremely dangerous and difficult conditions that our Foreign Service personnel face today in many parts of the world. Our deepest sympathies and heartfelt gratitude go out to all their loved ones. We ask all members of the Foreign Service community to join us in a moment of silence at 10:55 am EST. "

Why Did You Join?

I think there are two kinds of people in the Foreign Service: the ones who knew from the cradle that they were destined to be a diplomat and the rest of us who think "Sweet! How the hell did they let me in here?!" (followed closely by, "Oh my god, I hope they don't figure out they weren't supposed to let me in here!")

NoDoubleStandards has a great piece over at Muttering Behind the Hardline about how he got into the Foreign Service by accident. I can't wait for Part II.

My story is kind of similar. I managed to get my B.A., M.A. (both from a state school) and start a PhD (from a much better state school) before I ever heard of the Foreign Service. I thought diplomats were only people the President appointed.

Then my wife registered to take the test. And promptly decided to blow it off. No, I said, take it. It will give you more options. So she took it. And passed.

Then the orals came along, and she was thinking of blowing that off too. No, I said. We'll make it a weekend in DC, have fun, do the tourist thing.

And then she passed that too.

Time passed and we didn't think any more about it. I didn't know about the A-100 yahoo group, so we had no means of obsessing. We just continued with our lives.

And then they sent her an offer to join an A-100.

Oh crap. Now what do we do?

I know...let's just see how it goes.

So she joined. And we quickly realized that this would make it hard for us as a couple, because at the time, same-sex partners weren't on orders, couldn't get dip passports or protections, couldn't get EFM jobs, etc.

Oops. Now what?

Maybe I'll take the test.

I'm still working on my PhD, but we don't want to be apart for our whole careers, so we should start working towards it now. Because the test takes a while. So she started in March of 2002 and I took the test around October or so after seeing the cool folks she worked with. I figured I'd fail the first time since lots of folks lots smarter than me fail it many times. In fact, while I was testing, someone told me about a guy who had taken the test TEN times before he got in. Hmmm...not sure I am that dedicated. (There was also a girl there who worred that she didn't know what she would do if she failed because she had been preparing to be a diplomat for her whole life. I think she was about 12).

I thought I did okay on it. I mean, I had to do better than the guy who, upon learning that no, Clarence Thomas WASN'T the first black Supreme Court Justice, declared that how should he know ancient history anyway! In January, while I was in Azerbaijan for Christmas with my wife, I learned I passed, barely in enough time to agree to take the orals. The orals were scheduled from February through July. They gave me a date in July.

That's fine, because I still needed to teach field school that summer. So I didn't think much more about it (except I did take a prep session that was offered at my University).

Again, I thought folks lots smarter than me had failed the orals, but it would be good experience for when I was closer to being finished with my degree and therefore could more easily join my wife overseas.

And then I passed that. With a pretty high score. Meaning I'd get an offer quickly once my clearances came through. But of course the clearances take a long time, right? A couple years for my wife. So I have plenty of time to work on my degree.

And the security clearances took 2 1/2 months. My medical clearance took longer. My November, I was on the register and being offered a slot in the January A-100. Of course, I already had paid for a ticket to go back to Azerbaijan to spend Christmas with my wife.

So I declined.

And then I got an offer for March. That one, I accepted.

So here I am, six years later in a job I totally fell into. One I hadn't heard of a decade before. One I wouldn't have had I not talked my wife into going ahead and testing. One I had never intentionally prepared for but ended up being very prepared for (degrees and careers in Journalism and Anthropology are pretty good prep for a PD officer). And one that I really love.

Who knew?

Your turn. What brought you here?

From the Sounding Board: ePerformance

A friend pointed out this comment on the Sounding Board about ePerformance to me yesterday and I think it is brilliant. I got the author's permission to reprint it for you (I have removed the author's name).

"As I read the comments from my colleagues, I confess that I too used to be despondent about ePerformance. Last December, I worked with two PDAS’s for a week to try to enter my interim EER into the system, and finally just gave up because other issues were more pressing. At the time, I assumed that once Management realized the magnitude of the train wreck the Department was going to experience during the regular EER cycle, they would abandon ePerformance and go back to the less crappy form flow filler.

It was with a mixture of surprise and dismay that I witnessed HR stick to its guns. Not only was management going to use ePerformance, but it was actually doubling down its bet by spending money and time on classroom training, training tutorials, FSI Distance Learning Courses, Learning Labs and even ePerformance town hall meetings. Why, I wondered, would anyone is his right mind spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to install a computer program that not only doesn’t save time, but instead sucks up tens of thousands of additional man-hours across the Department? I could understand, perhaps, if it allowed us to hyperlink samples of memos we’d written, or family photos into our EER’s. If ePerformance actually wrote our EER’s, or at least had a hyperbole-checker, maybe it would be worth all this effort. But a software program to simply fill out a form? I simply couldn’t understand how smart people could persist in pushing such a stupid piece of software down our throats.

As my thoughts turned to locating a nice retirement community, I had an epiphany, of sorts, one that has cleared away this negative thinking. As one peels back the ePerformance onion, it’s obvious that it is not just designed to fill out our performance evaluations, but to actually improve our performance. As we all know, in a foreign service career, officers will often have to beat their heads against intractable problems (like Middle East peace), deal with mulish bureaucracies at home and abroad, and show flexibility in working across cultures. Over the years, HR has instituted all sorts of training regimes to help us do just that. I suddenly realized that ePerformance is like that exercise in A-100 where we all stood blindfolded in the woods, holding a rope and shouting at each other. It didn’t make any sense at the time, but we all learned from the experience.

HR has cleverly recreated that learning experience and team building exercise through ePerformance. For example, our team in Embassy London, faced with the ePerformance challenge, figured out a clever work-around, which apparently allows us to ignore most of the software’s features. Another team, stimulated by ePerformance and similar software, has actually formed an eHell working group (I’m not making this up) to try to bring some reason to the system. Both efforts are examples of team-building in the face of adversity – in the finest traditions of the foreign service – and neither would have taken place without ePerformance. Once I understood the real reason we’re using this system, I stopped cursing HR and began to think about how I, too, could use this adversity as a team building exercise for my office.

Unfortunately, the software itself still looks unfathomable, but maybe with enough blindfolds and beer, we’ll be able to conquer it. "

Because it wasn't bad enough...

This morning I learned that I have to put my EER into ePerformance.

Awesome.

Because everyone is LOVING that program so much.

And because I needed one MORE thing to do on my EER (which has not progressed at ALL since last week).

Luckily I have everything saved in Word...so the theory is I can cut and paste.

Tomorrow, I shall wear red shoes, click my heels together three times, and chant: "There's no place like FSI, There's no place like FSI."

Already May?

Which means it is almost time for me to move the next batch of blogs up to the main blogroll. You guys start on the 10th, right? I will be in the building on the lookout for you...actually, I will be at a table talking to some of you...

LGBT Provision Amended to Senate Foreign Relations Bill

I found this piece posted by HRC Backstory.

LGBT Provision Amended to Senate Foreign Relations Bill

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accepted an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (S. 2971) [PDF] that will help the State Department address LGBT human rights concerns abroad. The amendment, offered by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), for himself and for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), passed on a 12-7 roll call vote, with all Democrats and Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) voting in its favor. HRC supported this amendment and urged Committee members to vote in its favor.

Senator Feingold remarked:
"Passage of this amendment will help counter efforts around the world to restrict the rights of people just because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda is just the latest example of why we need to strengthen the State Department’s ability to monitor and address these serious human rights abuses around the world."

The amendment instructs the State Department to create one or more positions within the Human Rights Bureau to specifically monitor international LGBT concerns, including tracking of LGBT violence and criminalization of homosexuality. In addition, it requires the State Department to work through United States diplomatic and consular missions to encourage countries to reform or repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality or consensual homosexual conduct or that otherwise restrict fundamental freedoms for LGBT individuals. Furthermore, it mandates that LGBT issues be included in the Secretary of State’s annual report on human rights practices and that LGBT issues be included in the human rights training courses provided to Foreign Service Officers.

The amendment is virtually identical to language included in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act approved by the House last year (H.R. 2410, Section 333).

Going Public

Hannah over at the slow move east has been blogging for a while, and has recently made the decision to make her blog public. This is the reverse of what many blogs have done in the past. A lot of folks blog when they first join the Department because they are eager to share their experiences, but too often they are quickly scared into going private, or worse, deleting their blogs all together.

I hope Hannah is the start of a new trend. As I mentioned earlier this month, it seems to me that the Department is moving towards a more open and reasonable policy towards blogs. As one DS agent said in a video we watched during my training, "I love bloggers. I blog. I just hate stupid bloggers." We all serve because we love our country, and we blog because we want to share our experiences (and at least some of us hope to use the blogs to recruit other good people). I don't think any of us wants to do anything to hurt our country, particularly as a "stupid blogger."

Below is some of what Hannah said going public means to her. You should read her entire post on Going Public, or How I Learned to Manage My Healthy Awareness of Diplomatic Security.

[...]After seeing the shaming of a new FSO last January over her public blog, I've been thinking a lot about going public with this site, and what that might mean for me.

[...]

The shakedown of FSO Rookie really struck me as emblematic of the battle between the Old School State people and the newbies in the Department. I certainly don't want to disparage the old hands, who have knowledge and experience that will take me years to accumulate. However, I think that things have changed in the Department, and those of us in the new generation don't have quite the same point of view that our superiors have on a number of FS traditions. This job is wonderful, but it's not the only thing in my life - I'm not sacrificing my sanity and my personal life to uphold the self-imposed ideal of a US diplomat. As programs like Pickering, PMF, and Rangel bring in a younger, more technologically connected, and more diverse set of FSOs, the face of our diplomatic corps is changing, as is our attitude towards the work-life balance, the way that we interact with and engage the world, and the values we hold dear.

This is a long way of saying that I'm opening up this blog as a way to stake out my position on free speech for federal employees and our right to talk about our lives in a mature, logical way online. I understand the need to stay on message and the need to be secure. Neither of those concerns should preclude me from writing generally about my job, its benefits and difficulties, and the joys and struggles of living overseas as an American with an unusual position in my host country's society. Additionally, I've become a lot more connected to the FS blog community in the past few months, and I want to be able to take part more fully in conversations on comment boards. [...]

Here's to the future, folks.

EERing and moving on

I am convinced that Catholics have a guilt sponge surgically implaced at baptism and for the rest of our lives, whether we are practicing Catholics or not, we absorb any free-floating guilt in the room and make it our own.

I have been feeling guilty about procrastinating about writing my EER. It has made it so that I couldn't do anything else (well...except run - did I mention I am starting Week 5 of Couch to 5K today? - and blog, because guilt shared is guilt enhanced). So I haven't really given myself over to thinking about my onward. I have also gotten very little done on my dissertation.

But now that my EER is moving towards being complete (I still need to write my response to his part, but that is much easier), I can move on to fantasizing about my next assignment.

So in just a mere 7 weeks, or 34 more working days (since I am taking a long weekend in May to go to the beach), I will be done with these 12-14 hour days. I will move on the the bliss of sleeping a little later, biking to work, wearing blue jeans for work attire, and studying like a college student. Okay, probably better than a college student, or at least better than *I* was as a college student!

And I can start thinking about my next post.

Baltic Reports on Facebook helped me out with that a bit today by posting some pictures of Tallinn. I'll leave you with this non-copyrighted one. This link will take you to where you can see the rest.

I am also going to start working more on my dissertation. Tomorrow.

Procrastinating

Nobody in the Foreign Service likes writing EERs. If you don't believe me, check here, here, here, and here.

Show me a Foreign Service Officer who likes writing their EER and I will show you one of the most arrogant people on the planet.

I hate it. HATE. IT.

So I have been procrastinating.

Our EERs go through April 15. You should have bullet points to your boss by then or shortly thereafter. They have to be all signed, sealed and delivered by May 15 (this year, they have extended the deadline until May 21 because of some problems with the form, which only makes me want to procrastinate more).

The trouble with writing EERs is that everyone walks on water. In order to get promoted, you have to demonstrate that not only do you walk on water, but you can change that water into wine while doing it.

I have reasonably strong self esteem, but arrogant is something I am decidedly not.

My trouble this year is that I am getting a taste of what the FS-02s are having to do, which is basically having to write the whole thing. So they have to describe how they walk on water rather than having their bosses do it based on bullets they have provided.

Like many people, my boss is really really busy, so I am writing a draft of his part for him.

I just finished my draft of his part.

And I feel dirty.

And my fear is he will either leave it as it, and think I am arrogant, or change it, and ruin my chances at getting promoted.

Hate it.

HATE. IT.

Hong Kong bloggers?

I got an email today from someone wanting to know if any of you are in or have served in Hong Kong.

I haven't even served anywhere described as "the Hong Kong" of the place I was in. So I thought I'd ask you guys.

Eight Weeks

At a meeting with the Secretary I attended right after she took office, the Director of the Office of Civil Rights suggested that if she or her staff got lost in "The Building," to find a sixth floor staffer. They could get you anywhere.

I am one of those sixth floor staffers, or at least for eight more weeks, and I have been for nearly two years. So I can find most anything in The Building.

I mention that only because this morning, on the way to my office from Russian class, I decided to take a different route, one that took me right through the main area of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, my old stomping grounds. I chatted with several people I ran into, because I was in INR for two years and I know LOTS of folks there, and I was thinking how much I miss working in INR (side note: INR is a GREAT place to serve. I LOVED it and will probably make it my minor bureau). But then I remembered that towards the end of my tour there, I was ready to leave. Eager in fact.

Much like I am eager now.

Not because this job, or that one, are bad. As my wife said, in these jobs, I have not had to give my bosses nicknames.

But the Foreign Service attracts people who are smart and easily bored, or more precisely, with career ADHD. We know we will seldom be in one place, or one job, or with a certain boss, for more than a couple years. It is a burden and a luxury. No matter how bad (or, unfortunately, good) your boss is, you will only be with that person for a limited time. And then you will move on.

It is hard not to check out once you get your next assignment. But because I am on my third one-year tour (I had to bid four years in a row, and in case you are new here, I HATE bidding. How dumb was THAT career plan?), I couldn't really check out each time I got my new assignment because I had only just gotten to my current one.

But now I have eight weeks left. And I am giving myself over to checking out with abandon (though if I were smarter, I would wait until I finished my EER, but I never claimed to be smart!). I am fantasizing (and boring anyone who will listen) with the joy of thoughts of biking to FSI, of days that are not 14 hours long, and of retiring my suits in exchange for jeans as usual work attire. For 13 whole months.

Of course, I am certain I will be bored with it long before I get to post, but for now, it looks like heaven. And knowing that by the time I am bored with it, I will still be YEARS away from having to bid again makes it all the better!

Uptick in Snark?

I noticed, right after I labeled the blogroll, that several folks got snarky comments on their blogs.

I am wondering if there is a connection, or if this is just coincidence.

Are you noticing more snarky comments on your blog? Are jerks using the labels on my blogroll to target the kind of folks they want to bully? I sincerely hope not (because I really really don't want to un-label them!)

Foreign Service 15

DiploLife has an interesting post about the Foreign Service 15. It is, according to DiploLife, "the typical pounds gained when leaving D.C., on R&R in the U.S., and now I have discovered it can also occur when leaving an overseas post."

I have never heard it called that, but I have certainly experienced it. I would add to his list of times you gain them any time you work on one of the Watches here at Main State. It is not a case of "this may be the last time I get to eat this," but it certainly is a need for extra energy. And in the Operations Center, you can find all the junk food your heart desires on the food trough.

Do you have the foods you have to eat? I know I do! I think I have gained weight every time I came back to the states from overseas or when I was about to leave. When I was in Jerusalem, I made a two-week trip home for some training about a year into my tour. I found my first Starbucks on the way to the baggage claim in New Jersey and got a ginourmous strawberries and creme frappachino. And I ate bagels every day and nearly cried because you can't get good bagels in Jerusalem (yeah, I know, I didn't think that made sense either). And BACON. Any time I got out of Jerusalem, I wanted bacon on EVERYTHING. Turns out, it is not so good on ice cream.

I also eat Arby's roast beefs and of course you have to have a jamocca shake with it. And good mexican. And Outback at least once.

And sushi...though really, I eat sushi at least once a week, not counting the cafeteria sushi, because you just never know if this is the last time you will get to eat it.

Diplomacy Lite, Military Heavy

Now back to something a little (a lot) more serious. Pat Kushlis had a great piece yesterday over at Whirled View that I think you ought to read.

Diplomacy Lite, Military Heavy
By Patricia H. Kushlis

Why is American foreign policy so diplomatically light but so militarily heavy? No, I’m not imagining things. And it’s been that way for decades – George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just pushed the envelope further in that direction after 9/11.

Yet this is a fundamental question that Americans should not only be asking, but also attempting to resolve because diplomatic solutions, negotiations and conflict management are far less expensive (listen up Teapotter conservatives who long for small government and a miniscule federal budget – except, of course, for the military, roads and their Medicare and VA benefits), certainly less lethal, normally more effective with the neighbors and often just plain good foreign relations common sense.

[...]

The way the Cold War was conceptualized in the US, America tilted heavily towards reliance on preponderant military strength. This was also used as a way to persuade the American public to and sell the US Congress on support for a policy weighted towards consequent military growth.

One also has to wonder, however, whether at the time the alternative would have been a retreat into the equally misguided isolationism of Jesse Helms and if the Containment policy wasn't partially, at least, designed as a counter-balance. Then, of course, Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch hunt came along which damaged not only American universities, intellectuals, and the entertainment industry but also the State Department decimating the ranks of the China hands who, because they predicted Mao's victory, were somehow blamed for it.

[...]

Today the problem is - because of continued over-reliance on the military to solve all foreign policy problems - the US Armed Forces have been ordered to assume roles and engage in tasks for which they are eminently unsuited, unskilled and ill-prepared. Unfortunately, the State Department and what’s left of USAID have been so weakened over the years to be unable to take them on successfully either.

How to make fundamental changes?

The question in my mind, then, is how to effect the systemic seismic changes required. I agree with Suri who argues that the US should eliminate the concept of containment from its foreign policy lexicon and emphasize that of engagement (which I think Obama has largely done), that alliances should be seen as ongoing processes and relationships and that there needs to be a Constitutional revision of the National Security Act. Suri also suggests the establishment of a ROTC for the State Department as a way of training future diplomats.

[...]

Increases fine - but it will take far more to correct the Herculean problems

Congress has just agreed to increase the number of Foreign Service Officers by 1,000 (700 at State and 300 at USAID) next year. That’s all to the good. But what about the Peace Corps and where will those 700 newbies at State be assigned? Stamping visas every one?

In reality, these projected increases are 1) a drop in the bucket (the good news is that the phrase that there are more members of military bands than US Foreign Service Officers has finally become part of the vernacular) when the State Department still can’t manage its personnel well; 2) the Foreign Service Act of 1980 continues to force out too many competent officers at the peak of their careers for no good reason; and 3) it takes years (like about 20) to develop a seasoned officer with the requisite skills and foreign language ability to function well overseas. Just in time, as it turns out, for many to be retired prematurely.

[...]

You can read the entire piece here.

Seen in The Building

There is a joke in the Intel Community (and probably elsewhere) that you can tell an extrovert at NSA because they stare at someone else's shoes.

That is sort of true here at the State Department, with the vast majority of Foreign Service Officers being introverts (you wouldn't think so, right? I thought diplomats would all be people people. Turns out, not so much. Except in Public Diplomacy. Shocking I know).

So since there are so many introverts here, I wasn't surprised when I got on the elevator with my cafeteria sushi to head back to my office to see a woman staring at her shoes.

What suprised me was how she started singing unintelligibly right before her floor.

Of course, that is not my weirdest elevator experience today (what is it with elevators anyway?). This morning, I got on the elevator after my Russian class and there was a normal looking gentleman already on the elevator. As we came to his floor, I started to say have a nice day. But before I could, he stepped to the still-closed door, his nose almost touching it, bared his teeth like and angry dog, and growled at it.

So I just stared at my shoes.

A better label

Ryan over at Ryan and Lori's Exciting Adventures apparently likes my new blogroll labeling, especially in labeling the blogs done by male EFMs like Ryan. I have to say, I like his new acronym for male EFMs.

BROS

Or Beside Real Officer, Sighing.

I think his point about having to defend his maniless when people discover he is going to follow Lori illustrates just how deeply ingrained our stereotypes really are. And it is amazingly unjust, considering that just like in the military, Foreign Service spouses are serving our country.

So instead of pissing myself off, I am going to think of my labels as a useful way of proving that we don't need no stinkin' stereotypes!

Thanks Ryan!

ICAP

The nice folks at ICAP (International Career Advancement Program) asked me if I would pass along the following to you. I have a good friend from GLIFAA who has attended this program in the past and found it really useful. And as you might imagine, I am a big supporter of diversity in the Foreign Service (I'm a big supporter of the Foreign Service full stop, but maybe that is just because they pay my bills and occassionally let me travel to cool places!).

The Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, and the Aspen Institute invite applications for the International Career Advancement Program (ICAP) for 2010. ICAP will bring together mid-career professionals from groups underrepresented in leadership positions in international affairs with senior officials, faculty and staff to spend one week discussing:

* Major international issues to be faced during the next decade;
* The credentials and experiences normally sought for senior leadership positions;
* The importance of diversity if US interests are to be served adequately;
* Career issues or problems and how they can be addressed;
* Obstacles faced by those seeking advancement and how to overcome them; and
* Programs and policies designed to increase diversity at senior levels

The purpose of ICAP is to help bring higher quality and greater diversity to the staffing of senior management and policy-making positions in international careers in the US, both governmental and private. The aim is to assist highly promising mid-career professionals advance to more senior positions in international affairs. Those selected for the program pay for their own travel and must pay a $200 registration fee but their room, meals and program expenses in Aspen are provided by the program. Applicants should:

* Have a demonstrated commitment to increasing the quality and diversity of senior leadership in the US in international affairs;
* Be US citizens or permanent residents;
* Be professionals who have been or are now in international careers, with 3 to 15 years of working experience;
* Have a demonstrated interest in a long-term career in international affairs;
* Have credentials and achievements that indicate potential for the highest levels of leadership;
* Be committed to providing support for their peers and mentoring those junior to them

An application form can be downloaded from http://www.icapaspen.org/ or requested from:
Professor Thomas Rowe, Director
International Career Advancement Program
Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
2201 South Gaylord Street
Denver, Colorado 80208
E-mail: trowe@du.edu

This year's program is from September 25-October 3, 2010 in Aspen, Colorado.

Completed applications are due by May 10, 2010

A Long Way Baby!

A year and a half ago, we were still pounding on doors asking to be treated the same as our straight colleagues.

Yesterday, my wife and I participated in a photo shoot as a tandem couple to be used as part of HR's recruitment campaign (she hated it, but that is part of the price she pays for marrying an extroverted PD officer!).

We've come a long way, baby!

Clearly

Clearly, according to Fox, SC is also run by Muslims.

Who Called?

In my office, we get LOTS of calls from journalists. Really lots. Like, we are the only people in the State Department journalists ever call, because if they call someone else, like, say, a political officer with allergies to journalists, they get directed to Public Affairs.

And we like journalists. We have mostly good relations with them and while they sometimes ask tough questions that we wish they wouldn't, we try to give them good answers and hope we can get our message out.

So we get these calls. From all over. And who would you guess would be the ones to give us pause?

Washington Post? No.
New York Times? No.
CNN? No.

Not even Fox. But yesterday, we got a call from...

The Daily Show.

Oh crap. What could we possibly have done that got the attention of the Daily Show. This really can't be good.

Turns out they were calling about the design of the logo for the Nuclear Security Summit. Did we design it?

Not us. We direct you to the White House. And breathe a collective sigh of relief.

Turns out, Fox and Friends had done a story on the logo...they said that it looked like the Muslim Cresent.

Really?

Okay, I'll buy that... because I suppose if you don't believe in science, an ATOM is REALLY HARD to recognize.

I found a clip of The Daily Show's treatment here. I laughed until I cried.

FSI announces LGBT Community in Foreign Affairs Agencies Workshop

FSI announces: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Community in Foreign Affairs Agencies Workshop

This Transition Center workshop will highlight the unique situations that affect LGBT employees and their families overseas and help them understand and work with relevant USG policies. It will help participants identify the unique security challenges and safety issues that may arise overseas, gain familiarity with USG policies as they apply to same sex domestic partners and members of household, learn how to engage with post to gain assistance and understand the challenges of having foreign national partners both overseas and in the U.S.

WHERE AND WHEN: Transition Center, FSI, 4000 Arlington BLVD, Arlington, VA on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 from 6:00 pm- 8:30 pm.

WHO MAY ATTEND: Open to all foreign affairs agency employees, eligible family members and members of household

NON-STATE TUITION: No charge

HOW TO APPLY: Provide the name, agency and contact information of the attendee to FSITCTraining@state.gov

For more information: About this workshop and other FSI Transition Center courses, check our website at http://fsi.state.gov/fsi/tc/

QUESTIONS: For any questions about this workshop please contact Archana Dheer at dheera@state.gov

I might have just pissed myself off...

Okay, I added another label. And I can't decide if I have annoyed myself.

Male EFM.

I did it because so many assume (wrongly) that all EFMs are women. It seems to be a complaint of male EFMs that the assumption continues to be made in training, even when there are clearly male EFMs in the classes...

I don't think the issues facing male EFMs are different from female EFMs in reality (do I want a job/career, do I want to be a stay at home parent, what opportunities can I create for myself at post). But perhaps the perception is different.

I think more and more, women are joining the foreign service and men are the "trailing spouses" (what an obnoxious term). So I thought labeling the EFM blogs I knew to be male EFMs as such would let folks know there are more than they realize.

But if feels sexist...so I am annoying myself.

Done!

Okay, I have labeled all the blogs on the FS blogroll. But of course, there will be mistakes. So please take a look and if you see any glaring errors, I'll fix them. Fixing is far less time consuming that labeling all of them!

I noticed a couple things I hadn't realized. First, there are more FS tandem blogs than I realized. Second, there are more joint FSO/EFM blogs than I realized. Granted, most of them have one or the other doing most of the heavy lifting, but some are true He Said/She Said blogs (I am NOT being heterosexist here...I did not notice any co-authored blogs by same-sex couples. Mine included. I NEVER let my wife touch my blog! She has her own, but I think she posted twice. It is on the blogroll, but I didn't identify the author! You can probably bribe K at A Daring Adventure...she is the only one who knows.)

Third Culture Kids

You know those lists? "You Might Be From South Carolina If..." and so forth.

Well I found a blog this morning, La Vie en Rose, written by a self-descibed Foreign Service Dependent. And she has one of those lists for third culture kids. It is pretty funny. And true.

Some examples:

- You can't answer the question, "Where are you from?" (And when you do, you get into an elaborate conversation that gets everyone confused and/or makes you sound very spoiled.)

- You flew before you could walk.

- You have a passport, but no driver's license.

- You think VISA is a document stamped in your passport, and not a plastic card you carry in your wallet.

- You've woken up in the middle of the night to watch the Superbowl on cable.

- You go into culture shock upon returning to your "home" country.

- Your life story uses the phrase "Then we moved to..." three (or four, or five...) times.

- The thought of sending your (hypothetical) kids to public school scares you, while the thought of letting them fly alone doesn't at all.

- You are a pro packer, or at least have done it many times.

- Your passport has more stamps than a post office.

- You wake up in one country thinking you are in another.

- A friend talks about their dreams of traveling to across the world to a secluded country and you can give them all the best restaurants and places to visit. You're like the traveler guidebook.

- The MSGs become your favorite people because you see them all the time and everytime you call your parents you talk to them first.

- You learn that jet lag is easier going West around the globe.

You can read the entire list here.

Now for something totally different...

I have decided to take up running.

I'll wait for those of you who know me to stop laughing.

:::tapping foot:::::

Still waiting.

I could give you lots of really good reasons for why I am doing it:

*my wife inspired me
*walking the HASH in Jerusalem inspired me very slowly.
*my cousin died of a heart attack a few weeks ago at age 40 (for those who did not instantly think "wow, that's younger than you are!", I thank you).
*I want to lose weight and get in shape
*I wanted to be able to run with my wife (who am I kidding...she'd pass me in 2.5 seconds at her SLOW pace)
*I've always wanted to run but always started it the wrong way and gave up.

All of those things are true, but they aren't the real reason.

The real reason I decided to take up jogging is that last month, my wife ran her first half marathon.

And she got a cool free hat that says so (well, free if you don't count the entry fee and having to run 13.1 miles to get it).

And I WANT one.

Now I know many of you are thinking I am a little fat for running. I'll just say it is really rude of you to point that out.

So now I am doing the Couch to 5k program and learning to run the right way. And the weirdest thing? I kinda like it. I even have this urge to jog down the long hallways at Main State (though in a suit, that might look weird. Actually, it might look weird under any circumstance at Main State. No, scratch that, they will just think I am a staffer. Which I am. So maybe I will!)

And the endorphines are great.

Plus maybe one day I'll get a cool hat. For free (after paying an entry fee and running a really long way!)

I'm Working on It

It may take me a little while (DANG there are A LOT of blogs there!), but I am labeling them (with all due respect to Donna, who doesn't think they need labels. I hope you'll continue, like she does, to read a variety of them).

You might have noticed that the labels aren't appearing in order on the list...that is because I get bored easily. So I started at the top, then worked a while from the bottom, filled a few in towards the middle. Eventually they will all have labels.

If I have labeled you incorrectly, please let me know and I will fix it.

And just for Donna: the yellow is to highlight particular sentences for the reader. Maybe red would work better? Glad you'll come back either way!

Blogroll Question: Labelling blog types

Okay, so here is a question for you. I got asked a while back if any of the blogs on my blogroll were from USAID. So I let those who asked which ones were.

Should I label all the blogs on the blogroll? I don't want to "other" anyone (we are all part of the Foreign Service), but maybe it would be helpful for folks looking for an EFM perspective, or an officer or specialist perspective.

So what do you think? I am willing to invest the time (because I think my blogroll is the most important service I provide and reading my ramblings is just the fee I charge!) if people want me to do it. But I won't if it would offend folks.

Thoughts?

Condolences for Poland

Our phone rang at 4:30 this morning with the news that the Polish President and his wife had been killed when their plane crashed while trying to land in heavy fog.

The plane was full of dignitaries heading to Katyn to mark the 70th anniversary of the Soviet massacre of some 20,000 Polish officers and intellectuals by the Soviet secret security during World War II. It is a testiment to improving Russian-Polish relations that the two countries could come together to mark this sad anniversary.

What has slowly emerged over the last 14 hours is just how devastating this is for Poland. Not only have they lost their head of state, but they have lost a large number of high ranking government officials. Among the dead, in addition to President Kaczynski and his wife, Maria Kaczynska, were Aleksander Szczyglo, the head of the National Security Office; Jerzy Szmajdzinski, the deputy parliament speaker; Andrzej Kremer, the deputy foreign minister; and Gen. Franciszek Gagor, the army chief of staff. The entire top military brass, including the chief of defense and all the services, died in the crash, effectively decapitating the Polish military. They have lost opposition leaders, and all the candidates for President in September's upcoming election save one. The head of the National Bank and their leading gay rights activist were on that plane. And perhaps saddest of all, family members of the people massacred in Katyn were on that plane.

And the last time the Polish government was dessimated this badly was, ironically, at Katyn.

The picture above, coutrsy of the New York Times, is one of the more touching...it shows the empty seats reserved for the delegation at the anniversary commemoration.

Slawomir Debski, the head of Poland's Institute of International Affairs, said "We cannot understand why people representing the Polish state died at the same place where thousands of Poland's officers had been murdered. Apparently this soil must like Polish blood."

More Foreign Service Reality

Many thanks to Foreign Policy for this piece, which talks about some of the dangers facing people in the Foreign Service. Every so often, some ya-hoo comes along with the same old drivel about how cushy we have it. It is nice to occassionally see a piece recognizing the risks we face to serve.

U.S. Outposts in the Crosshairs

BY PETER WILLIAMS

As the most visible symbols of U.S. foreign policy around the world, embassies have always been a target for political violence. Last weekend’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Peshawar was just the most recent example. But embassies are addressing their vulnerabilities, as the Peshawar case shows: While two consulate employees were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside, the casualties could have been much worse if gunmen had breached the mission’s heavily guarded gate. Following are five U.S. facilities around the world that are ramping up security in response to worsening local conditions.

[...]

Which Brings Us To Our Next Question

Spousal employment.

What's an EFM to do?

According to DiploPundit, the FLO says that the answer to that question is seldom "work" (that is, for pay). Of the 10,000 or so EFMs going to post, 75% want to work, and only about a third of them get to. And the jobs they get? Well, I am sure that there are folks out there dying to be the CLO, but I wasn't one of them.

Of course, the situation I was in would be different today. As a same-sex partner of a diplomat, I wasn't entitled to EVEN APPLY for the CLO job until after all the EFMs at post had decided they didn't want it. And then I would get no preference over random ex-pats no associated with the mission and would likely be paid at the same rate as an FSN, which is often far lower than an American is paid for the same job at that post. I also wasn't entitled to a diplomatic passport and protections. So I left archaeology (a career I loved) and joined the service to be with the person I loved.

Plenty of folks can't or don't want to make that choice. Luckily they don't have to as often now.

I can't speak to what other folks have done, so I would really like for people to weigh in. What did you or your spouse do at post? Ryan and Lori's Exciting Adventures wondered how many folks choose posts based on spousal employment and how many leave the service for a lack of it. I wonder too, and I bet Ryan and Lori are correct in that the numbers are high. We live in a world where it is more common than not that both partners work, and many therefore take the duel household income hit of a salary cut and a sudden lack of spousal salary in order to serve the country. I wonder how many dedicated public servants leave because the cost is ultimately too high.

I do suspect those numbers would be hard to come by, since the Department does not count in its tally of attrition people who leave the service but stay in the employ of the Federal Government. So those folks who transition to Civil Service in the Department or who go to another agency aren't counted.

So what has your experience been? Have you been able to work and at what kind of work. If not, how has the absense of your salary affected your family?

Responding to a comment

I got a comment on my entry Here's a More Accurate View: The Foreign Service, A Rewarding Life But It’s Not for Everyone.

Anonymous said...
"So here's my dilemma - I've made it to the top of the Econ register, but have asked for a "temporary postponement" while I sort out my family and current job options.

My concerns include: as a female potential FSO in my early 30s, I'm worried about my young family's safety and about my husband's job track. He's been a steady career guy all his life and is nervous about following me around into the Great Unknown.

I'd also be giving up a much greater salary (not to mention my husband's income). So here's the question - just how great is the FS? Is it worth it for me to take the risk(s) or should I pass? Is it all it's cracked up to be, or is it a lot of bureaucracy and not as much on the job learning?

Any insights from other FSOs would be greatly appreciated!"

I started to respond on that post, but thought Anonymous would be better served by me reposting it here and opening it up to everyone for comment.

For me, it is a very personal decision, and not one that I regret even though I gave up a career I loved. But it isn't for everyone.

The running joke in the State Department is that the answer to every question is "it depends," and that is certainly true here. Is it worth it for me? Yes, but for you, it depends. Yes, you will get experiences you would never get anywhere else. You will experience countries in a way no tourist can. You will have the chance to do meaningful work and make a difference. But it is also a bureaucracy.

Will your children be safe? It depends. Some 85% of folks in the Foreign Service, me included, have been the victim of crime. I felt very safe overseas, but there are some who don't. Some spouses find meaningful work, some don't. I found being a Member of Household unacceptable, so I joined the service, but not everyone can make that choice. So it depends.

I hope others will weigh in. All I can say is that for me, I love what I am doing, can't wait to go back overseas, and don't regret my choice.

For me, it is definitely worth it.

Because you are dying to know...

Okay, as promised here is what they said about blogging.

First, the most recent guidance is still from 2008:

As bloggers, we are expressly prohibited from being posting on publicly accessible websites:

• Classified, SBU, or other information with restricted distribution requirements
• Floor plans/blueprints with associated information
• Home addresses, home/cell telephone numbers of individuals
• Personal or legal matters of another employee
• Technical information that may put Department resources at risk
• Medical records and/or financial disclosures of another employee
• Information dealing with investigative actions

We are also generally prohibited from being posting (unless the information is obtained through Public Affairs channels):

• Biographies of U.S. government employees except for DCM rank or equivalent and above, or as approved for public diplomacy or public affairs purposes
• Job titles and/or descriptions of U.S. government personnel, except as stated in the Key Officers of the Foreign Service Posts publication or when required by law or regulation
• Information identifying employees of other agencies
• Travel itineraries of individuals or groups prior to the event, unless previously released to the media or otherwise authorized as a part of a public diplomacy or public affairs function
• Pictures of U.S. government facilities other than the official photo of an embassy or chancery building

We did have a DS briefing, and while I understand that they are still telling A-100 folks not to blog or facebook ever never never or the USG might crumble, what they said to us seemed to me to suggest that DS is moving more towards understanding that this is the means of outreach these days, and perhaps in their minds is becoming a "neccessary evil." On one DS video they showed us, a DS agent with OPSEC (operational security) said that he himself blogs. That he loves blogs and bloggers, but hates "stupid bloggers."

Our presenter said that we simply need to be cautious from a personal perspective, recognizing that the Department of State is a target, and that we are a target by our association with State.

Which is a far cry from "don't blog."

What the video suggested is that people should be taught how to blog. Blogging can be a really useful communications tool, and I doubt any of us in the FS coomunity want to do harm to State or the USG. We are serving the country for goodness sake. So I agree, helping us understand HOW to blog would be a far better route than telling us not to (because as my blogroll illustrates, we are going to blog. And the blogs reach people). For example, the most useful guidance I ever got on blogging was from a DS agent who approached me as a friend and told me how what I was blogging on, which was not classified, could be used by the bad guys. I took from that lesson not that I shouldn't blog but that I should keep in mind how what I write can be used.

That was as indepth as they went...they didn't talk about specific types of blogs (though I'd suspect spouses have more liberty than employees). But like I said, it really seems to be a shift from don't blog to how/what to blog.

Watch this space!

Supposedly we will be learning today what we CAN'T do with social media (including blogs). I will keep you posted.

Well that didn't help so much...

I feel like I have failed you...

So apparently the links I posted for you yesterday are available on the Department's intranet, but not the regular internet.

That is, unless you have an account with intelink. So get one. Go the intelink.gov and sign up. Not sure if you can do it without a .gov email address. I'll try to find out.

Greetings from FSI

I am at the Foreign Service Institute for the next three days studying New and Social Media. Yes really.

Stop snickering. It is the advanced course.

ON EDIT: A common topic among bloggers is the Department policy about blogging, and I have discussed previously how the Department is a bit schitzophrenic on the subject.

In this class, it seems that the shift I expected is becoming more of a reality, as the Department establishes tools such as the Social Media Hub. Among the tools you will find there is a link for State Department Social Media Links. Included in those links are links for State Department Blogs (and there are a lot of them!) and State Department Facebook sites. The blog link in particular illustrates the schitzophrenia, mentioning on the one hand that the Department tries to control some blog content and while also providing links to a number of unofficial blogs (including this one).

And perhaps a sign of things to come, one of the designers of this course, and our first speaker of the day, was well-known blogger John Matel of World Wide Matel.

We support ESP, but are generally against coups

Sometimes the Daily Press Briefing is pretty funny. There were a couple good moments yesterday:

QUESTION: There are some reports that a Lebanese TV’s personality who is – a psychic – is going to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for allegedly practicing witchcraft. Now, given the fact that in your recent Human Rights Report you said that there have been some improvements in the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the fact that people of whatever type of religious or practices are being beheaded for their --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I have no knowledge of this case. We’ll be happy to look into it and provide a comment. Obviously, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, are central universal principles that we believe in. But I’ll take the question in terms of the facts of this case.

QUESTION: Right. You’re suggesting that psychics somehow are a religion --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m just saying I will – we will --

QUESTION: Witchcraft is a religion.

MR. CROWLEY: -- take and evaluate – see what we know about this case.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. Government position on extrasensory powers?

MR. CROWLEY: This is April Fool’s Day isn’t it? (Laughter.)

And then there was this:

QUESTION: P.J., what is your take on what’s going on in Guinea-Bissau – or reaction?

MR. CROWLEY: Very complex issue. I think all I would say is that we are monitoring it. We are, as a general rule, against coups. We’re against violence. We want to see constitutional rule restored as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: As a general rule, you’re --

MR. CROWLEY: As a general rule.

QUESTION: -- you’re against coups?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s really bold.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

One more thing to consider

Let's file this under things I wish I had known, though to be fair, there is not much I could have changed.

For those of you in the 152nd in particular, you have just gotten your bid list. You have been told that your first two tours are directed, and that after that, you lobby for jobs in the direction you want your career to go.

Those two things are true.

But...

That doesn't mean you will get the jobs you lobby for. What they never tell you is how much those two directed tours affect your whole career. For your third tour and beyond, you do lobby for the jobs you want. But lobbying is all about who you know. People doing the hiring either want to know you or know someone who knows you. You want big dogs in your corner who can help persuade those people to hire you.

And where do you acquire those big dogs? From your previous tours. It would be nice if they considered your experience from before the foreign service, but often they do not. So for me, I had trouble getting my first public diplomacy job even though I had degrees in journalism and anthropology as well as experience in both fields (so I have both aspects of PD work covered) because no one knew me. So instead, I went from my second tour to a position as a staff assistant in the same bureau as my second tour. Why did they want me? Because they knew me. I was a known quantity in the bureau. Now fortunately, the PDAS in that bureau had previously served as an office director in the office I wanted to go to. HE (not me) was a known quantity there, and so HIS word (not my experience) got me the job. Before he weighed in, I couldn't even get them to schedule a time for me to come by and chat about the job.

From that job, I was able to get the job overseas I wanted because I got the biggest dogs in the bureau to weigh in for me, plus I knew one of the big dogs making the decision through GLIFAA.

Same story for my wife. Her DCM and Pol-Econ chief from her first tour weighed in for her for her third tour. Again, despite her experience (and PhD) in the area of concern, it was who spoke on her behalf, and that she herself was something of a known in that bureau, that got her the job. Her next assignment was because of her experience in her third tour. Her onward is because of her experience in that bureau and our connection to the big dog making the decision for the next tour.

All of this is to say that when you are considering where you want to bid for your first and second tours, consider too where you want to go after that. Find out about the people you will be working for, where they have served, etc. And use that as an additional guide when you decide which posts to bid high, medium and low. You will still go where your CDO assigns you, but since they do TRY to put you where you want to be (within reason), it can only help to be armed with as much information as possible when you make your case.