DPBO hearing

This is a press release sent out yesterday regarding the upcoming hearing on DPBO. If passed, this will make life much more bearable for Foreign Service Officers with same-sex partners.

FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
Contact: Seamus Hughes (Lieberman) 224-1839

September 22, 2008
Mark Carpenter (Collins) 224-4751

MEDIA ADVISORY

HEARING ON BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

WASHNGTON - The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday, September 24, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., on the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, which would entitle the same-sex domestic partner of a federal employee to the same benefits and responsibilities that married spouses of federal employees have. Some of those benefits include health care, the Family and Medical Leave program, long term care, insurance, and retirement benefits. Obligations include anti-nepotism rules and
financial disclosure requirements. A majority of Fortune 500 companies provide benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Who: The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

What: "Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees: Fair Policy and Good Business"

Witness: Howard C. Weizmann, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Yvette C. Burton, Ph.D., Business Development Executive, IBM Corporation

Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union

Sherri Bracey, Program Manager for Women's and Fair Practices, American Federation of Government Employees

Frank A. Hartigan, Deputy Regional Director, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

When: September 24, 2008, 10:00 a.m.

Where: Dirksen 342

Another terrorist attack

You probably saw in the news about the bomb blast at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad yesterday. At least 57 people were killed and as many as 230 were injured. No doubt the place was targeted in part because it is a favorite spot among western diplomats. Initial reports I saw said that four Americans from the Embassy were there but made it out alive (one was apparently injured).

I was greatly relieved to hear a friend of mine who is serving there was not among those hurt, and that apparently none of the folks from our embassy were killed (of course, the media never says if locally-hired embassy workers were killed because Americans don't count them as "our people." But all of us in the foreign service do.)

My heart goes out to the Czech mission. Their Ambassador, Ivo Zdarek, who had just arrived in country a month ago, was staying at the hotel and was killed in blast.

You can read more about the attack here.

UPDATE: Reports are now that two American military personel working at the Embassy are among those killed. Our hearts go out to their families.

Bastards

I am glad my friends are okay, but sorry that innocent police and civilians died in this attack.

Al Qaeda blamed for U.S. Embassy attack

(CNN) -- Suspected Al Qaeda disguised as security forces launched an explosive assault ck on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sanaa Wednesday killing 10 Yemeni police and civilians, officials said.

The attack involved two car bombs, a spokesman for Yemen's embassy in Washington said. Six attackers, including a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest, were also killed in the attack, Mohammed al-Basha said.

The attack involved at least four explosions -- including at least one car bomb -- and sniper fire, a senior State Department official said, adding that no U.S. Embassy employees were killed.

The heavily fortified compound in the capital of Yemen -- the ancestral home of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden -- has previously been targeted in attacks.

The U.S. official told CNN that the attackers initially opened fire outside the embassy's security gate, then there was the main explosion followed by a secondary explosion.

At some point, snipers positioned across the street from the embassy opened fire on Yemeni first responders as they arrived on the scene, the official said.

Those killed include six Yemeni policemen and four civilians, he said, noting that the number of wounded is unclear.

Yemen believes al Qaeda is responsible for the attack, al-Basha said. Media reports said Islamic Jihad in Yemen -- which is affiliated with al Qaeda -- has claimed responsibility for the attack, but CNN could not independently confirm those reports.

Trev Mason, a British national who lives near the embassy, said he saw "a massive fireball" near compound. Eyewitness tells of fireball outside embassy »

"We heard the sounds of a heavy gun battle going on," he told CNN. "I looked out my window, and we saw the first explosion going off -- a massive fireball very close to the U.S. Embassy.

"The gun battle went on for a further 10 to 15 minutes, followed by two further loud explosions."

The first explosion happened about 9:15 a.m. Wednesday (0615 GMT/2.15 am ET) and was followed by several secondary blasts, said U.S. Embassy spokesman Ryan Gliha. Listen to Gliha describe aftermath

Gliha was at the embassy at the time of the attack and said he felt the compound shake.

"We were all ordered to assume what we call a duck-and-cover position which is a position where we guard ourselves and bodies from potential debris," Gliha told CNN.

"From that vantage point, I can't tell you much after that except we did feel several explosions after the main explosion that shook the ground."

Al-Basha called it a "despicable and heinous act" particularly because it took place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The White House has condemned the bombing and vowed to "to increase our counterterrorism activities to prevent more attacks from taking place."

The U.S. official told CNN that Yemen's cooperation in fighting terrorism "needs to be better."

Witnesses told CNN they heard gunfire, and said they saw ambulances rushing from the scene.

Yemeni officials said the first car contained people in police uniforms who exchanged fire with Yemeni security forces, the officials said. The second car exploded after it passed an outermost gate to the Embassy but before it reached a second protective barrier, the officials said.

But al-Basha said there were two cars packed with explosives involved in the attack.

The U.S. State Department has warned of violence that it attributes to Islamic extremists in Yemen. It has cited concern "about possible attacks by extremist individuals or groups against U.S. citizens, facilities, businesses and perceived interests."

The State Department ordered the departure of all non-emergency American staff from the Embassy, along with their family members, in April, after attacks against the Embassy and a residential compound. That order was lifted last month.

In March, three mortar rounds landed near the Embassy, injuring Yemeni students at a nearby school and Yemeni government security personnel, the State Department said.

The next month, an expatriate residential compound in the Hadda neighborhood was attacked by mortar fire. Suspected extremists fired two mortar rounds toward the Yemen Customs Authority and Italian Embassy in April, as well, but no one was hurt.

Authorities in Yemen have been struggling to curb the activities of al Qaeda-linked groups, with militants seen as having free rein outside major cities, says CNN's International Security Correspondent Paula Newton.

No need for diplo-draft...again

No surprise here. Enough of us have stepped up to the plate, as we always do.

No need for diplomatic draft for Baghdad embassy

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday that enough diplomats have volunteered for duty at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq next year to avoid having to draft potentially unwilling candidates to serve there.

A cable sent to all foreign service officers says 325 jobs in Baghdad and outlying provinces, along with 134 in Kabul, that come open next summer have been filled by qualified volunteers.

"I want to applaud our foreign service and civil service colleagues who have once again come forward to answer the call in Iraq and Afghanistan," Foreign Service Director General Harry Thomas said in the cable.

Officials familiar with the staffing process said that all positions were taken but that assignments for a handful of diplomatic security agents in Iraq were still pending.

Last year, the prospect of forced Iraq tours in what would have been the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam sparked an uproar when some objected to compulsory service in a war zone, with one likening it to a "potential death sentence."

In the end, volunteers filled the 48 vacant posts that had prompted preparations for the possible draft, but the department warned again in April that it might have to repeat the process of identifying candidates for forced Iraq duty unless enough diplomats stepped forward to meet the need for 2009.

The process, known as "directed assignment," means ordering diplomats _ who take an oath to be serve anywhere in the world _ to work in certain locations under threat of dismissal unless they have a compelling reason, such as a health condition, that would prevent them from going.

Rice urges more blacks in foreign policy

I found this today on CNN Wire.

Rice urges more blacks in foreign policy
Posted: 05:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday there are too few black Americans in the State Department.

“I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State — and as a matter fact I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State — and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me. And that is just not acceptable,” Rice said.

She was delivering the keynote speech at the annual Conference of the White House Initiative on National Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Noting that last year such colleges received $5 million in scholarships and grants from the State Department, for language training, study abroad and exchange programs, she said, “It’s good for the students but it is good for America, too. Because when I go around the world I want to see black Americans involved in the promotion and development of our foreign policy. I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country.”
–From CNN’s Charley Keyes

Quite a few blogs are all abuzz with this, particularly some of the more right-leaning ones. The Right Rant, after spewing some racist drivel about the black community, said: "If Condi is to be believed, there are vast numbers of qualified blacks waiting to become diplomats or serve otherwise in the foreign service but, white administrations refuse to hire them because they're black.

Condi diminishes her own impressive accomplishments by invoking race as a job qualification. And she casts doubts on the qualifications of blacks who DO get hired for their experience, education, and knowledge and not their skin color."

How about another option? As an American Indian, I am painfully aware that there are only 35 American Indians in all of the Department of State. So when Secretary Rice says she can go through a whole day and see few people who look like her, I get it. I see none. And I don't believe, and I doubt she does, that the reason for this is that "white administrators refuse to hire them." I do think there are plenty of qualified African Americans and American Indians out there who just don't know that the State Department is an option. I certainly didn't, and never even considered it until my partner joined.

What I think she is saying, and I agree, is that we need to make a conscious effort to reach out to other communities. No one is saying to hire blacks or Indians for their color. But maybe we could recruit a little better at traditionally black or Indian universities to let them know of the opportunities at State. Because the Foreign Service SHOULD look like America. The Foreign Service has been accused of being "pale, male and Yale." We should send men and women of all hues, religions, sexual orientations, etc., abroad to represent us because that is what America is.

Ambassador Guest Begins New Organization

This was in yesterday's Bay Area Reporter

Former gay ambassador launches new rights group

Michael Guest, formerly the United States ambassador to Romania, is helping to launch a new group that will push America's government to support LGBT rights on the world stage. The openly gay Guest is a paid adviser to the Council for Global Equality, which will have its first meeting in Washington, D.C. on September 23.

The council, whose Web site is slated to go live this month, is a collaboration between LGBT and straight groups that work on human rights internationally.

"Its purpose is to make the United States government and the State Department stand up for global LGBT human rights," explained Guest during an interview last month in Washington, D.C. at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association's LGBT Media Summit.

Guest, 50, made history in 2001 when be became the first openly gay person to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to an ambassadorship. He stepped down from the post at the end of 2003 and retired from the State Department at the end of 2007.

In 1999, San Francisco resident James Hormel became the first out person to serve as an ambassador when then-President Bill Clinton appointed him as the country's representative to Luxembourg during a recess of the Senate, which had refused to confirm Hormel due to his sexual orientation.

During Guest's swearing-in ceremony, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a point to recognize Guest's partner, Alex Nevarez. The occasion was viewed by many in the LGBT community as a turning point in how the government treated out Foreign Service employees.

Instead, Guest and Nevarez quickly came to realize that they did not have the same rights and benefits as other embassy employees because the government did not legally recognize their relationship. Yet it wasn't until the occasion of his retirement last December that Guest publicly repudiated how the federal government mistreats its LGBT employees and their partners who are stationed overseas.

"The Foreign Service tends to be very open-minded. I never heard any colleague express a problem with my sexual orientation. It is the policies of the State Department that are unfair to us who are lesbian or gay and have partners," said Guest.

As soon as Nevarez made the decision that he wanted to travel with Guest to the embassy in Bucharest, the couple faced numerous hardships that other ambassadors and their partners would not have. Guest was forced to pay for Nevarez's transportation and to ship his belongings overseas.

The two were also informed that Nevarez could not be treated in the embassy's own medical unit. Should he be treated there, Nevarez would be charged for the medical care. Nevarez would also have had to find his own way out of the country should the embassy need to be evacuated, said Guest.

"If there is political unrest or violence and the embassy is drawn down, they are on their own," he said. "It doesn't make any sense. It is very unfair. The government is putting partners at risk."

Guest is pushing to see that such discrimination against same-sex couples stationed overseas ends should Democrat Barack Obama be elected president in November. He serves as an adviser to Obama's presidential campaign, working on the LGBT human rights and the European policy groups.

"I am fully confident if Obama is elected, certainly he will revise these policies that are so unfair to us," said Guest. "It should not matter if you are gay or straight. We need good people to serve."

Asked if he would serve again in an Obama administration, Guest left open the possibility.

"I learned a long time ago never to say no and rule things out. But it is not what I want in my life right now," said Guest. "I really love the freedom I have now to be outside of the government and free to say what I want to say, working on issues I care about."

Together 12 years now, the couple, who live in Washington D.C., would like to marry someday. Opposed to flying out to California for a wedding, Guest said they would like to have the ceremony closer to home.

"We want to do a ceremony to reflect the importance of the relationship to each of us," he said. "We have thought of going to California but would want our friends to be there. We will likely have a commitment ceremony in D.C. or some closer place like Massachusetts in Provincetown so it is not a financial burden on our friends."

I'm Back and Gons is Gone

Just got back from vacation last night and am working my way through any interesting Foreign Service news I may have missed while I was gone (dial-up access does not make for easy web searching, so I didn't bother trying).

This morning I learned that our "friend" Gons Nachman was sentenced for his sexual encounters with children while representing our country overseas in the foreign service. I'm pleased with the outcome. You can read the whole story here, but I have quoted some of it below:

Ex-US diplomat gets 20 years for child porn
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - An ex-U.S. diplomat who admitted taping his sexual encounters with teenage girls while stationed in Brazil and the Congo was sentenced Friday to 20 years, the maximum possible prison term.

Gons G. Nachman, 42, had sought leniency, claiming among other things that cultural differences in those countries made sex with teenage girls more acceptable.

But U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee took the unusual step of imposing consecutive 10-year terms for the two counts on which Nachman was convicted.

"I reject out of hand completely the idea that I should take into account cultural differences," Lee said. He said even if such differences exist, Nachman was answerable to U.S. standards and U.S. law while working as a diplomat on embassy grounds.

Nachman pleaded guilty earlier this year to possessing child pornography after admitting he videotaped his sexual encounters while working as a consular officer. He also pleaded guilty to misuse of a diplomatic passport.

The case also included allegations that he pressured attractive female Brazilian visa applicants for sex, though he was not charged with that.

Nachman, a naturalized U.S. citizen who came to the U.S. from Costa Rica when he was 17, admitted that he recorded his sexual encounters with a 17-year-old girl in 2004 and a 14-year-old girl in 2005 while stationed in Kinshasa. One of the tapes was labeled "Congo 2004 Sexual Adventures."

He also admitted recording his sex acts with a 16-year-old Brazilian girl while stationed in Rio de Janeiro in 2006.

[...]

Nachman wept after hearing the sentence. His attorneys had suggested the six months he has already spent in prison would be sufficient.

In court, Nachman apologized to his victims and the U.S. Foreign Service.

"I've had this self-centered streak that has caused me to be where I am," he said.

His apology stood in contrast to letters he wrote after his guilty plea to the Foreign Service director seeking intervention on his behalf. He said he was unfairly targeted because he had been active in the nudist community and threatened to take the story about the "injustice" of his case to the international press.

[...]

Temporary Hiatus

My posts will be pretty limited for the next week, primarily because I currently only have dialup.

See you next week when I am back on DSL.

Yet Another Small Victory for MOHs

This past week, I told you about Members of Household (MOHs) being allowed to take some limited training, including some language training. Now, they are also allowed to assist their partners if that partner is med-evaced from a unaccompanied post.

In English, that means IF a Foreign Service Officer or Specialist is serving at a post where family members are not allowed to join them (unaccompanied post) and gets injured or ill and has to be evacuated to better medical facilities; and IF that officer or specialist requires the assistance of a family member; and IF the same-sex partner has a medical or durable power of attorney for the officer or specialist (Eligible Family Members, such as opposite sex spouses do not need to meet this last criteria because they get the right to make medical decisions by virtue of their marriage...just one of those more than 1200 rights married people get that same-sex spouses don't, but I digress...), THEN the Department will fly that person out to whereever the officer or specialist was evacuated to in order to assist that person in getting their medical needs met.

It is a small step, and a humane one. Infuriating that it has to be so spelled out, but at least it is a move in the right direction.

Former Diplomats Endorsing Obama

I have avoided discussing the upcoming presidential elections for obvious reasons.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter professionally. As Foreign Service Officers, our job is to carry out the foreign policy of the president, no matter who that president is. It is one of those deal breakers. If you can't do it, regardless of your own opinion, look elsewhere for employment. What this means is that every single foreign service officer either has or will serve under a president with whom he or she doesn't agree. It is the nature of our service, and most of us, me included, are okay with that. It also, in my experience, has meant that some of the most civil and intelligently argued political disagreements I have had have been with other FSOs. It is one of the things I like about the service. Politics are not neccessarily personal.

That said, I didn't feel like I could not mention something discussed on several of the blogs I read regularly. There is now a new group of more than 200 former Foreign Service Officers who have started Foreign Policy Professionals for Obama. Among them is Avuncular American, who I regularly read and occassionally quote, and WhirledView, who falls into that same category for me, has been asked to sign on as well. Undiplomatic endorses it but hasn't signed on because he was a political appointee and not an FSO.

Obviously, I make no recommendations about Foreign Policy Professionals for Obama other than to remind current FSOs that this is a group for former FSOs and they should carefully read the Hatch Act before becoming involved with any political campaign. But if you would like to read more about the group, you can do so here.

Another Small Victory for MOHs

This week, the Director General of the Foreign Service sent out a cable making a few more training opportunities available to Members of Household.

Now Members of Household, including same-sex partners of Foreign Service Officers and Specialists, are allowed to take Distance Learning and FAST language course at the Foreign Service Institute on a space-available basis. Included in this will be access to the pre-deployment course for the spouses of those going to Iraq.

They are small victories, to be sure, but still significant. I think the general 10-week FAST courses are particularly important, in that they give the MOH the ability to function a little better in country. Not a full language course like spouses can get, but certainly a start.

One step at a time.

PC: America: Prone to War, Not Diplomacy

I found this today at Political Cartel.

America: Prone to War, Not Diplomacy

[...]

As for larger issues, such as the rise of China, an approach that advocates the position taken by international theorist John Ikenberry should serve as a model for future U.S. foreign policy. Instead of antagonizing a rising China by focusing on a build-up of arms and an increase in military spending, the U.S. should seek to encourage and cradle China’s absorption into the Western institutional mold. Unlike any time in history, a rising superpower will face a well-established international order with existing institutions and well-established norms. This provides the world (specifically the U.S.) with the opportunity to prove wrong the hegemonic stability theory in favor of a peaceful absorption. The international world doesn’t have to change. There exists already the necessary tools and institutions to make China’s ascension to superpower status a peaceful and relatively harmonious event. Instead of viewing China’s rise of a threat, and thus a reason to spend more on military aggrandizement, the U.S. should seek to expand its diplomatic corps and work to bridge cultural gaps and mend ill feelings.

Let it be known that this write-up isn’t a dove advocates apologetic. I understand that the pressure for a strong and large military is perceived as a must for the United States and, in many ways, a necessity. But the disproportional figures between military spending and diplomatic investment are staggering. I can only hope that future administrations, whoever they are, will put a renewed focus on the virtue of engagement and breathe a new life into American diplomacy.

You can read the entire piece here.

Charleston Post-Courier: Pay More for Diplomacy

This piece is a little dated, but the Charleston Post and Courier is a paper that is near and dear to my heart, so I had to post it.

Pay more for diplomacy
Monday, July 21, 2008

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been rightly warning the president, Congress and the nation since last year that U.S. policy in developing nations places too much reliance on the military and not enough on diplomacy.

He repeated that advice last week in a headline-grabbing speech warning of the "creeping militarization" of American foreign policy. According to The Washington Post, Mr. Gates said that in the next 20 years, "The most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from emerging ambitious states, than from failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs — much less the aspirations — of their people."

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in future campaigns against terrorists and other destabilizing forces, he said. "Broadly speaking, when it comes to America's engagement with the rest of the world, it is important that the military is — and is clearly seen to be — in a supporting role to civilian agencies."

The defense secretary's assessment was echoed two days later by a non-governmental aid organization, Refugees International, in a report saying that American aid to Africa is becoming increasingly militarized and short-term in its priorities at the expense of longer-term development.

Mr. Gates, in his speech, returned to a theme he first expounded in a speech last year at Kansas State University. There he said, "We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military. There is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on civilian instruments of national security — diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."

This week he observed that the budget increases for the State Department and the Agency for International Development since 2001 have largely been eaten up by the costs of heightened security for embassies and other missions, and by the declining dollar.

"America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long — relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world," Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates's complaint has been frequently heard in the past 60 years. What makes his comments particularly arresting is that they come from the head of the defense establishment, not from the Foreign Service.

They should get the full attention of the next president and Congress, recognizing that when diplomacy succeeds, armies don't have to fight.

Kristof: Make Diplomacy, Not War

This was in yesterday's NY Times op-ed section:

Make Diplomacy, Not War

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Iraq and Afghanistan are the messes getting attention today, but they are only symptoms of a much broader cancer in American foreign policy.

A few glimpses of this larger affliction:

* The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.

* This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.

* More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.

In short, the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems.

After all, you can’t bomb global warming.

Incredibly, the most eloquent spokesman for more balance between “hard power” and “soft power” is Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Mr. Gates, who is superb in repairing the catastrophe left behind by Donald Rumsfeld, has given a series of astonishing speeches in which he calls for more resources for the State Department and aid agencies.

“One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win,” Mr. Gates said. He noted that the entire American diplomatic corps — about 6,500 people — is less than the staffing of a single aircraft carrier group, yet Congress isn’t interested in paying for a larger Foreign Service.

[...]

With the Olympics unfolding in China now, the Navy and the Air Force are seizing upon China’s rise as an excuse to grab tens of billions of dollars for the F-22, for an advanced destroyer, for new attack submarines. But we’re failing to invest minuscule sums to build good will among Chinese.

[...]

Then there’s the Middle East. Dennis Ross, the longtime Middle East peace negotiator, says he has been frustrated “beyond belief” to see resources showered on the military while diplomacy has to fight for scraps. Mr. Ross argues that an investment of just $1 billion — financing job creation and other grass-roots programs in the West Bank — could significantly increase the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that money isn’t forthcoming.

[...]

The next president should absorb that lesson and revalidate diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy — even if that means talking to ogres. Take Iran. Until recently, the American officials in charge of solving the Iranian problem were not even allowed to meet Iranians.

“We need to believe in the power of American diplomacy, and we should not believe a military conflict with Iran is inevitable,” said Nicholas Burns, until recently the under secretary of state for political affairs and for three years the government’s point person on Iran. “Our first impulse should be a serious and patient and persistent diplomatic effort. Too often in our national debate we focus on the military option and give short shrift to the diplomatic option.”

So here’s a first step: Let’s agree that diplomats should be every bit as much of an American priority as musicians in military bands.

You can read Kristof's entire piece here.

Connecting the Dots shares Kristof's (and Digger's) frustration with the staffing levels of the Foreign Service when compared with the military, particularly as we have seen increasing threats to global stability in Pakistan and the Republic of Georgia. CDT notes: "All of this will require foreign-service brains, expertise and experience but, as Kristof points out, the US has more musicians in its military bands than diplomats."

Honoring Those Lost

Ten years ago today, terrorists bombed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. At least 213 people, including 12 Americans, died in Nairobi, and another 4000 or so people were injured. Forty four of the dead were American Embassy employees (12 Americans and 32 Foreign Service National employees). Eleven people died in the Dar es Salaam explosion, and at least a hundred were injured there. Neither embassy had a setback. Had it not been for the bravery of unarmed FSNs in Nairobi keeping the terrorists outside the embassy compound, many more would have died.

The Department is having a memorial ceremony this morning to honor their sacrifice. There will also be ceremonies honoring the victims at both of the embassies. You can read more about those ceremonies here.

You can read more about the attacks at Diplopundit and Dead Men Working. Diplopundit's post contains the names of each of the victims and links to more information about them. Great Diversions reminds us that 9/11 was not our wake-up call. It came three years earlier.

For Better or For Worse

...which is obviously set in Canada.

But MOHs Need Not Apply

Great Diversions mentions the good news that the State Department finally got some money to hire more diplomats than the rate of attrition:

The Department of State finally received a little extra funding that can be used toward hiring. A State cable (or telegram…yes…we still use telegrams) came out recently announcing how the Department will use some of the funds it received from the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. The good news, especially if you’re looking to join the Foreign Service, is that some of that money will be used to hire 140 new Officers above attrition rates.

This increase in hiring represents the first increase over attrition in FSO generalists since 2004. In an age where even the Secretary of Defense says we need to hire more diplomats, this comes as welcome news and hopefully is a sign of more money in the future. In addition to hiring more FSOs, some of the money will be used to hire over 100 Eligible Family Members (the spouses and adults children of diplomats overseas) into new positions.

Of course, Members of Household don't count as Eligible Family Members. So none of those 100 jobs will be open to same-sex partners of diplomats. In fact, same-sex partners of diplomats when applying for any job at a consulate or embassy where their partner is serving must first allow EFMs to apply and if there is no qualified EFM available, must compete with every other ex-pat in the community. Even though they are in country because their partner is serving the country, something not true of most ex-pats.

The One That Got Away

I hope they catch him and lock him away forever. Or lock him in a room with the families of those lost. Or in a room with anyone in the Foreign Service.

Kenya: U.S. embassy bomb suspect flees raid

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- One of the FBI's most wanted terrorists escaped a raid over the weekend, Kenyan police said Monday.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, indicted in the United States for alleged involvement in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, managed to evade police in a raid Saturday morning in Malindi, along Kenya's coast, said police spokesman Eric Kiraithe.

The United States calls Mohammed a senior al Qaeda operative in East Africa.

U.S. officials accuse him of being an architect of the embassy bombings that killed 225 people.

They also believe Mohammed was involved in attacks on an Israeli-owned hotel and airliner in Kenya in 2002.

You can read the entire piece here.

Gates Seeking "Eggheads"

This is an extension of the human terraine mapping teams, which hires anthropologists and other social scientists to work with the military to better understand the folks in Afghanistan and Iraq. I was asked to apply for one of the positions. But given that one of my anthropology professors had already referred to me joining the Foreign Service as "going to work for the government's war machine," and given that the anthropologists working on these teams and getting these grants have trouble ever working in anthropology again, I opted against it. Anthropology got a bad rep for working with governments to the detriment of the people they were studying at the inception of the discipline. So this raises alarm bells in the anthropological community. And I'd like to be able to go back there someday. But as one of those "eggheads," I found the article interesting.

Military's Social Science Grants Raise Alarm

By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is calling on "eggheads" to help the military unravel questions about the recruitment of terrorists, the resurgence of the Taliban and messages delivered in militant Muslim religious schools.

Many eggheads are wary.

The Pentagon's $50 million Minerva Research Initiative, named after the Roman goddess of wisdom and warriors, will fund social science research deemed crucial to national security. Initial proposals were due July 25, and the first grants are expected to be awarded by year's end.

But the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, which includes professors from American and George Mason universities, said dependence on Pentagon funding could make universities an "instrument rather than a critic of war-making."

In a May 28 letter to federal officials, the American Anthropological Association said that it was of "paramount importance . . . to study the roots of terrorism and other forms of violence" but that its members are "deeply concerned that funding such research through the Pentagon may pose a potential conflict of interest."

[...]

You can read the entire article here.

Massachusetts lets out-of-state gay couples marry

Of course, the Foreign Service will still not recognize these folks as married, but hope springs eternal. You can read the entire Associated Press piece here.

Massachusetts lets out-of-state gay couples marry

[...]

Supporters of the repeal of the law, which banned couples from marrying in Massachusetts unless their unions would be legal in their home states, say lifting the ban was not only fair but will have economic benefits.

A state study estimates that more than 30,000 out-of-state gay couples — most of them from New York — will wed in Massachusetts over the next three years. That would boost the state's economy by $111 million and create 330 jobs, the study estimated.

[...]

Patrick, the state's first black governor, said he was proud to sign the bill repealing the law, which some say had its roots in trying to block interracial marriages.

Massachusetts in 2003 became the first state to rule gay couples had a right to marry; California recently legalized gay marriage, without a residency requirement.

"In five years now, the sky has not fallen, the earth has not opened to swallow us all up, and more to the point, thousands and thousands of good people — contributing members of our society — are able to make free decisions about their personal future, and we ought to seek to affirm that every chance we can," said Patrick, whose 18-year-old daughter recently revealed publicly she's a lesbian.

[...]

Opponents said the ban prevented Massachusetts from interfering with the decisions of other states — the overwhelming majority of which specifically bar same-sex marriage. The old law had been invoked by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, who said repealing it would make Massachusetts the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."

[...]

Asked if the change in Massachusetts might create legal problems for couples returning to states with gay marriage bans, Patrick said: "What we can do is tend our own garden and make sure that it's weeded, and I think we've weeded out a discriminatory law."

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