Our Local Staff Need Help Too

This Department notice came out yesterday. As you can imagine, the local staff suffered alongside all their fellow Haitians in this disaster. No doubt, maybe will be homeless. I have not heard if any FSNS or their family were killed in the earthquake, but if not, we were incredibly lucky. But their need will be extreme, and I hope you will consider directing some of your generousity to them.

Foreign Service National (FSN) Relief Fund Replenishment

SUBJECT: DONATIONS FOR LOCALLY EMPLOYED STAFF NEEDED FOLLOWING THE HAITI EARTHQUAKE

Ref: STATE 00003587

Summary:

1. This notice provides guidance to all Americans and Locally Employed (LE) Staff for making donations to the Foreign Service National (FSN) Emergency Relief Fund (see paras 4-10). As a result of the devastating earthquake that struck on January 12, our LE colleagues are in urgent need of your financial support. End Summary.

Background:

2. While we are unable to anticipate the number of requests, we expect it to be overwhelming and the Relief Fund needs to be prepared to provide immediate assistance. By making a public-spirited gift, you will aid the Department in this effort as well as replenish the Fund as a continuing source of LE Staff assistance. In the past month we disbursed more than $90,000 to employees in Manila, Antananarivo, and Ouagadougou and now we need your support for current disaster assistance. Contributions to the Fund can be made by check, credit card, or through payroll deductions. All contributions to the Fund are tax-deductible and can be made by all elements of the public and private sector.

3. The Department of State established the Relief Fund to respond to crisis or humanitarian requests on behalf of Foreign Service National employees serving all agencies of the United States Government. Please follow the detailed process below to make your donation.

How To Donate:

4. Check Contributions: Please send checks to the Department's Gift Fund Coordinator, Donna Bordley, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, RM/CFO, Rm. 7427, Washington, DC 20520. Make checks payable to the U.S. Department of State, designation for the FSN Emergency Relief Fund. Please include a return address where a letter of acknowledgment for your charitable tax deduction purposes may be sent.

5. Credit Card Contributions: On Visa or MasterCard accounts only, send an e-mail message to "FSN Emergency Relief Fund" on the GAL. Include your name, mailing address, VISA/MasterCard account number and expiration date. Also include the following statement in the e-mail: "Contribution to the FSN Emergency Relief Fund". "I authorize the Department of State to charge the referenced credit card account in the amount of U.S. "$XX" as a contribution to the FSN Emergency Relief Fund." You will be provided with a response e-mail that can be used for your tax purposes.

6. Payroll Deductions (American employees): Department of State and overseas American employees of other federal agencies on payroll by the Department of State may also make voluntary contributions to the FSN Emergency Relief Fund by payroll deduction. You may request a one time or recurring deduction from your net pay by contacting the Payroll Customer Support Center (PCSC) at PayHelp@state.gov (found in the Global Address Listing under “Payroll Customer Support”). You may speak with a Payroll Customer Support Center representative by dialing 1-800-521-2553 or 1-877-865-0760. Faxed requests should be sent to 1-843-308-5625 and must include your signature.

Your request for voluntary payroll deduction should include your name, address, social security number and date of birth along with the following statement:

I intend to make a gift in the amount of $XX as a contribution to the FSN Emergency Relief Fund. I request the Department of State to deduct from each of my biweekly salary payment (s) $XX for XX pay periods, until the total gift amount has been deducted. If the contribution is a one-time deduction, indicate “1” pay period in your request so it is clear that it is a one-time deduction.

[...]

Statement from the Secretary on Victoria DeLong

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY CLINTON

The Passing of Victoria DeLong

This morning I spoke with the family of Victoria DeLong, the Cultural Affairs Officer at our Embassy in Port-Au-Prince who lost her life in the earthquake. I expressed my sincerest condolences on behalf of the men and women of the State Department and the American people. So many have lost their lives in this tragedy. The United Nations has suffered grevious losses. And the Hatian people have endured unimaginable heartbreak. For the State Department, we have lost one of our own. Victoria was a veteran Foreign Service Officer who worked tirelessly to build bridges of understanding and respect between the people of the United States and the people of Haiti. She served her country with distinction and honor, and she will be sorely missed. Victoria's friends and colleagues at the Embassy are working day and night to support vital relief and recovery efforts, and our thoughts, our prayers, and our deepest thanks are with them as well. Along with the military personnel, the search and rescue teams, and all the aid and relief workers now deploying, they represent the unwavering commitment of the United States to stand with Haiti in its hour of need and in the hard days and years to come. My heart is with the DeLong family today, and with all those in Haiti and around the world who have lost loved ones and friends in this disaster.

Sad News for the Foreign Service

During the Daily Press Briefing tonight, the State Department announced that Victoria J. DeLong, the Cultural Affairs Officer in Port Au Prince, was killed when her house collapsed during Tuesday's earthquake.

DeLong joined the Foreign Service in 1983 and had served in Haiti since February 2009. She was 57.

The thoughts and prayers of everyone in the Foreign Service go out to her family. We all know the risks we take when we sign up to serve our country, and that any one of us could have been in her place.

From our department notice:

We are deeply saddened to learn of the death of Victoria J. DeLong, our Cultural Affairs Officer in Port-Au-Prince. We join our embassy in Haiti to express our heartfelt condolences to her family, and we are providing all necessary support to the family during this difficult time.

Ms. DeLong joined the Foreign Service in 1983 and served as Cultural Affairs Officer in Haiti since February 2009. In one of the most challenging environments in the world, she dedicated herself to educational and cultural exchange between the people of Haiti and the people of the United States. Her creativity, hard work, communication skills, and courage in this task advanced the partnership between our countries and the cause of peace and prosperity in our global neighborhood. She will be sorely missed by her colleagues and friends.

A station in her native California covered her death here.

Haiti Earthquake Info Website

The Department has launched a web page with information on the earthquake in Haiti, including how to find your loved ones and how to help:

2010 Earthquake in Haiti

Haiti Assistance

For those with loved ones affected by the 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti yesterday evening, the following notice was sent by the State Department:

Americans are urged to contact the Embassy via email at ACSPaP@state.gov to request assistance. Americans in Haiti can call the Embassy’s Consular Task Force at 509-2229-8942, 509-2229-8089, 509-2229-8322, or 509-2229-8672. The State Department has also created a task force to monitor the emergency. People in the U.S. or Canada with information or inquiries about U.S. citizens in Haiti may reach the Haiti Task Force at 888-407-4747. Outside of the U.S. and Canada, call 202-501-4444.

You can also find more information here.

Also, please consider texting and donating $10 dollars to the Haiti relief effort. Simply text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill.

And please keep all those in Haiti, especially those serving our country there (one of whom is still not accounted for), in your thoughts and prayers. All of us in the Foreign Service know how easily it could be us.

Diversity DiaBLOGues

I learned yesterday what the Department's Office of Civil Rights has begun what it calls Diversity DiaBLOGues. According to the website:

Diversity DiaBLOGues is designed to be a forum where issues regarding diversity can be brought to light through innovative, constructive, and progressive discourse. The blog is also an avenue for Department Employee Affinity Groups to discuss relevant issues. We hope to engage all Department employees and realize the Secretary's pledge of "equity, fairness, and inclusion” in our work environments at home and abroad.

You can check it out here.

Earthquake in Haiti

Just less than an hour ago, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake was reported with the epicenter 10 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince. Our embassy in Port-au-Prince is working to account for all of our staff there, but apparently landlines and cell phone communication. We have heard that some buildings across from the embassy have collapsed.

Please keep the people of Haiti, particularly those who are serving our country there, in your thoughts and prayers.

And from Secretary Clinton just moments ago:

Before I begin with this critically important subject about our future in Asia, I want to just say a few words about developments in Haiti. We are still gathering information about this catastrophic earthquake, the point of impact, its effect on the people of Haiti. The United States is offering our full assistance to Haiti and to others in the region. We will be providing both civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. And our prayers are with the people who have suffered, their families, and their loved ones.

Women in the Foreign Service

The Washington Post yesterday had an interesting piece on the "Hillary Effect" and how Secretary Clinton is credited with bringing more women into ambassadorial positions in the U.S. According to the article, there are now 25 female ambassadors posted in Washington (including the first ever from a Muslim country, Hunaina Sultan Al-Mughairy of Oman), the highest number ever. Women remain, however, a distinct minority among the 182 accredited ambassadors in Washington.

Today, DiploPundit has an interesting piece on "The Palmer Effect".

Alison Palmer, the woman who helped get more women into the U.S. State Department, was hired as a FSO in 1959. In 1970, the Department paid for her to earn a Master's in African studies from Boston University. Yet despite her experience and degree, she was turned down for several assignments in Africa after ambassadors wrote that they didn't want her because she was a woman. She ended up as a social secretary to the wife of an ambassador who did not want her because she was a woman.

This was at a time when just nine percent of Foreign Service officers were women. By 2007, it was 37 percent. Palmer, now 78, wonders why it is not 51%, like the general population.

You can read all of DiploPundit's excellent post here.

I do wonder whether sexism is completely dead and gone in the State Department. I know that for my own A-100 class, which was about 50% female, only 20% of the women in the class were tenured on the first go round, compared with 50% of the men. And of those tenured, again about 20% of the women and 50% of the men were promoted. Those statistics bothered me, and several other of the the women in the class (whether tenured and promoted or not), but we decided not to say anything about it.

Clearly the Department has come a long way in hiring and promoting women, minorities, and gays and lesbians. I am optimistic the trend will continue, but we are still have a ways to go.

Not just visas

Joel Mowbray has an editorial in the Washington Times today blaming the Christmas Day Under Bomber attack squarely on the State Department. I have have seen this sentiment in the blogosphere and completely disagree with it, but I have been loath to discuss it here. Now that someone has stirred that hornets nest in the mainstream media (both WT and CNN), I'll weigh in a bit.

MOWBRAY: It's the visas, stupid

By Joel Mowbray
"Tucked away in a single paragraph near the end of the declassified preliminary report on the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack is the key fact glossed over by most in media and the government: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had a valid visa when he boarded his Detroit-bound flight.

Whether or not "dots" had been "connected," Mr. Abdulmutallab never could have come as close as he did to successful mass murder had the State Department immediately revoked the man's visa when his father first raised concerns. Without a valid visa, the young Nigerian would not have been en route to the United States in the first place. "

Digger comments:
As Mowbray mentions later in the editorial, Abdulmutallab was qualified for the visa when he received it. He said, "he is, after all, well-educated and from a successful family." He had travelled previously without breaking any laws. So issuing the visa was the appropriate decision. However, even had State revoked the visa the moment his father raised concerns, this would not have affected his ability to get onto the flight because he still had in his passport a visa that looked valid. Airlines don't have access to our visa records for understandable security reasons, and we don't have DHS agents at every overseas airport in the world. So the first place that it could have been noticed that his visa had been revoked would have been at the U.S. border. and his attack occurred long before that.

The only way that the visa could have been invalidated so that the airlines would know would have been to get him to come into the embassy and let them stamp "revoked" on his visa. What do you think the chances of that are?

Mowbray continues:
"All the more maddening is that this is precisely the lesson we learned from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists, none of whom actually qualified for the visas that were nonetheless issued to them. Yet eight years later, the State Department has barely budged its default position that visas are to be issued unless they have a clear reason to deny applications. "

Digger continues:
Absolutely false. When I took con-gen (the training course for consular officers), I was told that for tourist visas you start at no. All applicants are to be presumed to be intending immigrants until they can prove otherwise. For me, this meant that they needed to overcome, in addition to everything else, what I called my "hinky feeling." If I wasn't sure you intended to come to the U.S. for legitimate reasons, you didn't get the visa. Period. And I think this is the default position for every officer working the visa window, especially those of us who joined after 9/11. Because no one wants to be part of letting that happen again. We all jumped through a lot of hoops to join the Foreign Service because we love this country and wanted to serve it.

Mowbray continues:

"[...]

As part of this larger power struggle, DHS has been thwarted in many of its attempts to open Visa Screening Units (VSUs), which were mandated for every visa-issuing post as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Nearly eight years later, there are only 14 VSUs, or fewer than 10 percent of all embassies and consulates. There is no VSU in Nigeria, even though DHS has wanted to establish one.

Lack of funding is partly to blame, but several ambassadors have successfully rebuffed efforts to create VSUs in their countries - fearing that enhanced security enforcement would slow visa processing, angering local government officials. "

Digger comments:
I think the lack of VSUs has much more to do with funding than any power struggle. It cost a lot of money to have someone overseas. Not only do you have the cost of the person's salary, but their housing and transportation as well. Add to that the cost of training in language and area studies (most FSOs going to do visa work receive six months to a year of language training alone. DHS would have to bear the expense of that training for someone who was likely to serve in that country only once and then come back to the U.S. FSOs know that there is a likelihood of returning to the countries where their language skills are needed). If I had to guess, most of those 14 VSUs are in English-language posts. I would personally welcome DHS at any post where I served, but it is going to cost the American taxpayers a bundle.

You can read the rest of his editorial, which continues from the building blocks above, here.

Blogging in the Foreign Service

DiploPundit has a good piece on the new toys that are available for reaching the world and the State Department's resistance to using them. She sites a report the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, wrote for Foreign Policy on “How the U.S. State Department should enable and encourage social-networking sites in the global fight for freedom. In the report, Senator Luger said:

"But social networking technologies are more often used to enable individuals across a country, or across the globe, to interact, engage, and become empowered. Although this means that our government will not be able to control the message as well as it might with conventional public diplomacy tools, I believe it is a risk worth taking. Terrorists and other anti-American propagandists have for some time been using the Internet and other techniques to communicate and recruit. America needs to beat them at their own game, especially since we invented most of the technology.

I would encourage the administration and our diplomats to be nimble, flexible, and innovative as they pursue a wide range of foreign-policy initiatives that use these new communication and connection techniques. Diplomacy and development are our best means of winning the global war of ideas, and we must come to the battle armed with the most modern tools at our disposal."

Of course, the Department is loath to be nimble and flexible. And, I would argue, suffers from multiple personality syndrome where blogging and new media are concerned. I am in Public Affairs and have discussed new media and blogging with those in HR as well, and I can assure you that both bureaus LOVE blogging and new media. PA tweets. PA blogs. And they love that others do as well because it is a way to get our message out and is a great recruitment tool.

DS and some political folks, on the other hand, are convinced it is a security risk and that we bloggers are half-way down the path of handing the keys to the building over to terrorists. And while there is a course now at FSI that includes new media, even there, both personalities are evident. After we hear about all the great things we can do with new media, a speaker comes in and tells us all the reasons we can't. And then of course there is the directive that we have to clear anything of "official concern." As you can imagine, "official concern" is in the eyes of the beholder, and the clearance process and the realities of our techno-savvy world are completely incompatible. If I cleared everything I wrote here, I would still not have entries discussing anything more recent than months ago.

And the world would have moved on.

One of the most disturbing things I read on DiploPundit's entry was a comment from another FS blogger, who said she walked by the A-100 classroom and head the coordinator "crushing the blogging hopes and dreams of one of the new officers." I hope they don't listen, because I believe the anti-blogging parts of the Department will ultimately be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of new technology by those bureaus that have already realized what a great tool it is. PA tweeting messages from the Secretary's speech on development this earlier this week, and one of those was retweeted by a group with 360,000 followers. THAT is getting our message out. (ON EDIT: Looks like at least one new FS blogger has already deleted his blog based on what was said in the current A-100. And his in particular was helpful to those looking to join. Sad.)

Personally, I blog because I love serving this country and I want other good folks to join me, but with eyes wide open. It is why I maintain such an extensive blogroll. I want people to have access to slices from a wide variety of Foreign Service experiences. And I blog because communication and self-analysis makes us stronger. And because we have to get our message out in ways that people today will hear. And that means communicating not through the channels we are accustomed to but in the places where we can actually reach people.

Uganda lawmaker refuses to withdraw anti-gay bill

From the Wires this Morning:

Uganda lawmaker refuses to withdraw anti-gay bill
By GODFREY OLUKYA - Associated Press Writer

KAMPALA, Uganda - (AP) The Ugandan lawmaker who proposed a bill that would give some gays the death penalty said Friday he will refuse any request to withdraw the legislation after a minister said the government would ask him to.

Lawmaker David Bahati said he felt the bill is necessary in the conservative East African country. On Thursday, Minister of State for Investment Aston Kajara said the government would ask Bahati to scrap the bill because they fear backlash from foreign investors. The bill, which Bahati proposed in September, has provoked criticism from gay-rights groups and protests in London, New York and Washington.

"I stand by the bill," Bahati said. "I will not withdraw it. We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality). The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on."

The proposed legislation would toughen Uganda's already strict laws against homosexuality, which are bolstered by Uganda's conservative society.

The draft of the new bill says anyone convicted of a homosexual act _ which includes touching someone of the same sex with the intent of committing a homosexual act _ could face life imprisonment. The death sentence could apply to sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. The new law also expands its scope to include Ugandans living abroad, who can be extradited and punished.

The bill will appear before parliament in late February or early March.

Kajara said government officials worried the bill would scare off investors.

"Ever since the bill was tabled, there have been a lot of outcries not only here but from all over the world," he said. "There has been negative publicity on Uganda which is not good for investment. As government, we shall talk to the private member who brought it to parliament and request him to withdraw it."

President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues he believes the bill is too harsh and has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party to overturn the death sentence provision. Several lawmakers have agreed and say they will push to remove the statute.

The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.

On the African continent, South Africa is the only country that allows gay marriage. However, some South African groups have rejected homosexuality as "un-African" and gangs carry out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians. A 19-year-old lesbian athlete was gang-raped, tortured and murdered in 2008.

The Catholic church in Uganda has said it supports the bill but not the death penalty provision. But a group of non-traditional churches has accused Museveni of siding with gays and maintains that the Bible supports killing gays. Anglican Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who is one of the global fellowship's most senior priests, has said he condemns the proposed law in his native country.

DC Agenda: State Dept. issues guidance for FSOs with same-sex partners

This in the DC Agenda (formerly the Washington Blade) is about the cable I posted for you earlier this week.

State Dept. issues guidance for FSOs with same-sex partners
By Chris Johnson

A new State Department directive obtained this week by DC Agenda instructs U.S. embassies how to implement new rules for Foreign Service officers with same-sex partners.

The undated message brings into effect changes President Obama ordered in June as part of a memorandum that notably gave some partner benefits to LGBT federal workers.

In addition to these benefits, the June memorandum offered to the same-sex partners of FSOs resources for moving abroad, assistance in obtaining foreign visas as well as access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation and embassy medical units.

This new cable directs U.S. embassies to carry out that June order by instructing posts to ask host countries to issue visas to the same-sex partners of FSOs. Embassies are exempt from taking this action only if they believe asking host countries for these visas would make allowing an FSO’s same-sex partner to accompany them more difficult.

US complains of Pakistan harassment of diplomats

Sounds like things are getting a bit nasty in Pakistan.

Though to be fair, it isn't uncommon for diplomats to get harassed in country (we got it fairly often in Jerusalem. Our Consul General, the chief of our mission, was once held up for hours at a check point where they insisted he get out of the vehicle (not safe) or get a call from the Ambassador in Tel Aviv (the consulate does not report to Tel Aviv). We also regularly had "visitors" in our homes.

Here is a recent AP story on the issue in Pakistan:

US complains of Pakistan harassment of diplomats
By NAHAL TOOSI - Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD - (AP) The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan complained Thursday that its diplomats are being harassed and detained as they travel in the country, illustrating heightened tensions between the allies as America expands its presence here.

The rare public protest reflects the rising frustration among U.S. officials over alleged Pakistani efforts to stymie Washington's moves to add hundreds more staff and more space to its embassy in Islamabad.

U.S. officials say they need more room and people to help disburse a $7.5 billion humanitarian aid package to Pakistan, whose cooperation Washington needs to fight al-Qaida-allied militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

But suspicion of U.S. motives abounds among Pakistanis: Many believe the U.S. is simply flooding the country with more spies whose ultimate aim is destabilizing Pakistan and taking over its nuclear program.

In recent weeks, American diplomats have faced lengthy delays in receiving approvals for visas and visa extensions. Some also have been stopped at checkpoints by police who have in a couple of cases temporarily confiscated their vehicles. Some of the incidents have been publicized in the Pakistani press.

On Wednesday, two Pakistani employees of a U.S. consulate and their police escort were detained while traveling in Baluchistan province in the country's southwest to prepare for a visit involving a development project, an embassy statement said. It called upon Pakistani officials "to cease these contrived incidents involving U.S. mission vehicles and personnel."

The statement also quoted U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson as pushing Pakistan to implement an agreement to identify diplomatic vehicles in a safe manner.

The agreement lets those vehicles carry normal Pakistani license plates on the outside _ so as not to be identified as U.S. vehicles and easily targeted by militants _ while carrying special diplomatic plates inside to show polices, embassy spokesman Rick Snelsire said.

"There was an agreement on that," Snelsire said. "We're waiting for the agreement to be implemented."

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry's spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.
Snelsire said U.S. Embassy employees were still experiencing delays in visa approvals, despite appeals to Pakistani authorities.

"They don't tend to reject visas; they just don't issue them," Snelsire said. "We're still working on refining the process."

Foreigners coming to work in Pakistan are often subject to background checks by multiple ministries and agencies, including Pakistan's powerful intelligence apparatus.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad has plans to go from about 500 American employees to more than 800 over the next 18 months, largely to accommodate the aid package, which provides $1.5 billion annually over five years for economic and social programs.

The package is designed to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government and comes as a string of violent militant attacks have rocked the country _ apparent retaliation for its anti-Taliban army offensives.

The package's requirements for accounting and oversight have rankled Pakistanis including top brass in the army, an institution that has ruled the country for about half its 62-year existence.

And this is the latest press release from the embassy.

Press Releases 2010

U.S. Mission To Pakistan Concerned By Harassment of U.S. Diplomatic Vehicles

January 7, 2010

Islamabad - The U.S. Mission to Pakistan is concerned about the continued provocative actions and false allegations against U.S. personnel working to implement the new partnership between the leaders of Pakistan and the United States. The U.S.Embassy today called for immediate action by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has responsibility to facilitate proper arrangements under which a foreign mission may operate with full security.

In the most recent incident, on January 6, 2010, a U.S. Consulate General vehicle with two Pakistani employees of the Consulate and their Sindh police constable escort were detained on Wednesday when traveling in Gwadar. The staff was preparing for the upcoming visit of U.S. development assistance staff to one of Pakistan's most impoverished regions. The U.S. Embassy emphasizes that all U.S. vehicles in Pakistan are appropriately registered with the Pakistani authorities and carry at all times full documentation attesting to their legal status. The two Consulate employees and their police escort were carrying all the required documents and had met in Turbat with the Police Commissioner as part of their work.

Speaking in Karachi today, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson pointed out that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is obliged to provide proper arrangements in order to address the security concerns of foreign diplomats in Pakistan. The Ambassador offered assurances that American diplomats and their staff will comply with all Government of Pakistan procedures, but that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not yet implemented the agreed upon procedures.

The U.S. Mission renews its call on Government of Pakistan officials to implement immediately the mutually agreed upon procedures for the issuance of license plates to U.S. Mission vehicles and to cease these contrived incidents involving U.S. Mission vehicles and personnel.

State Department Same-Sex Domestic Partner Accreditation

We've been waiting for this cable to go out for a long time. Basically, this instructs all posts to ask the host country to grant visas for same-sex domestic partners. The only excuse for not asking is if post thinks that will make it HARDER for Foreign Service employees to bring their partners to post.

This is such an amazing change from previous administrations, where diversity didn't include the LGBT community. And it is important to note that the Secretary granted these benefits to same-sex partners "to to achieve greater equality for the Federal workforce through extension to same-sex domestic partners of benefits currently available to married people of the opposite sex. " This is about addressing inequities facing those who CAN NOT get married, not to place them above their heterosexual colleagues who CHOOSE not to get married.

SUBJECT: Same-Sex Domestic Partner Accreditation

1. Summary and Action request: In this cable, the Department is advising posts about new accreditation procedures regarding declared same-sex domestic partners of our U.S. government personnel under Chief of Mission authority. These individuals have been provided a diplomatic passport by the Department and/or are listed on the travel orders or approved OF-126 (Foreign Service Residence and Dependency Report) of a sponsoring employee following submission of an affidavit declaring a domestic partner relationship pursuant to 3 FAM 1610. In this regard, we request that posts inquire about the host government's accreditation policy for same-sex partners and urge host governments to accredit them where such accreditation is possible. See action request in PARA 5. End Summary.

2. The Department's new practice regarding the accreditation of same-sex partners is part of its implementation of the President's June 17 Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination "to achieve greater equality for the Federal workforce through extension to same-sex domestic partners of benefits currently available to married people of the opposite sex." Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated her commitment to this goal.

3. The Department has taken steps to implement this policy and, as part of that effort, has changed its visa and accreditation policies regarding personnel of foreign missions in the United States:

a. The Department has amended its visa regulations and is issuing diplomatic visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign mission personnel, subject to reciprocity.

b. On November 4, the Department's Office of Protocol advised foreign missions in the United States that it will accept the accreditation of same-sex domestic partners as members of the family of diplomatic and consular personnel who enjoy privileges and immunities. The text of Protocol's circular note is set forth at PARA 7.

4. The Department is also working with the Department of Homeland Security to amend the regulations regarding work authorization so that same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats who are accredited will also be able to work in the United States. Once the new regulations are issued, we will be seeking to amend our bilateral dependent employment agreements or arrangements to allow for the reciprocal extension of employment authorization to domestic partners.

5. ACTION: Posts are requested to approach the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of Protocol, or other appropriate office to advise orally, in a meeting, that the United States intends to seek accreditation for the same-sex domestic partners of its diplomatic and consular personnel as members of the family of such diplomatic and consular personnel and requests that they be accorded the same status, privileges and immunities currently accorded other members of the household, such as spouses.

Posts are asked to advise the Department (M and regional A/S by front channel cable) whether the MFA in such a meeting expressed its willingness to accept the accreditation of USG same-sex partners. Posts should also advise the Department on approaches to other offices in the host government in situations where the decision may not rest only with the MFA. Posts are also asked to include details on steps that post will take or is taking to ensure same sex partners are accommodated to the fullest extent possible.

EXCEPTION TO ACTION REQUEST: Posts that are of the view that such an approach to the host government would do more harm than good by impeding the ability of same-sex partners to accompany personnel to post or otherwise cause harm to personnel or their families are asked to advise the Department (M, L, and regional A/S) by front channel cable of that conclusion, the reasoning supporting the conclusion, and recommendations for further action that may implement the President's and the Secretary's directives.

6. Where the MFA expresses a willingness to accept same-sex partners, post should subsequently notify the MFA that the individual is a member of the family of an accredited member of the diplomatic or consular mission in the identical fashion that it accredits other family members. In such situations, posts are asked to update the Department (M, L, and regional A/S) by front channel cable if any implementation issues arise in the context of such accreditations.

7. The Office of Protocol's Circular Diplomatic Note:

The Secretary of State presents her compliments to Their Excellencies and Messieurs and Mesdames the Chiefs of Mission and refers to the notes dated November 3, 1988, February 2, 1987, and May 22, 1986, concerning the definition of family members.

As indicated in the referenced May 22, 1986, note, it has long been an accepted principle of international law that the privileges and immunities to which members of the mission are entitled extend, to a certain degree, to the members of their families forming part of their households. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 37(1)) specifies the privileges and immunities which shall be accorded such "members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of [the] household" but does not provide a definition of the term "members of the family" for the purposes of the Convention. The drafters of the Convention recognized that the concept of "family" differs among the societies of the world and left the matter to be resolved according to the standards of the respective receiving States.

The Chiefs of Mission are informed that, in addition to the categories of individuals previously accepted as family members, the Department has determined that the definition of "family" forming part of the household of a diplomatic agent may include same-sex domestic partners ("domestic partners") for purposes of the application of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in the United States. In accordance with guidance from the White House, the Department is not in a position to accept the accreditation of opposite-sex domestic partners as members of the family.

In order to be eligible for acceptance as a domestic partner of a member of a diplomatic or consular mission, a same-sex domestic partner must not be a member of some other household, must reside regularly in the household of the principal, and must be recognized by the sending State as a family member forming part of the household of the principal, as demonstrated by eligibility for rights and benefits from the sending State. Therefore, when notifying the Department of domestic partners of its mission members, the sending State is requested to submit appropriate documentation that it recognizes the same-sex domestic partner relationship, which could include evidence that the sending State provided the domestic partner with a diplomatic or an official passport or other documentation based on that status, or with travel or other allowances. Domestic partners of employees of a diplomatic or consular mission (and of miscellaneous foreign government offices) accepted by the Department will be eligible for "A" or "G" visas. The new visa regulation is enclosed.

In addition, the Department intends to pursue the legal measures necessary to enable the United States to offer dependent employment to same-sex domestic partners, on a reciprocal basis, in the context of bilateral dependent employment agreements or arrangements. The Chiefs of Mission will be advised of any such developments as soon as it is possible to do so.

The attention of the Chiefs of Mission is also drawn to applicable provisions of international law in respect of the termination of status. As stated in previous circular notes, whenever any person who has been accorded status as a member of the family in the United States (other than a student attending boarding school or college) ceases to reside with the principal, such person immediately ceases to be a member of the family within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Accordingly, all privileges and immunities, if any, to which such person previously had been entitled in the United States would terminate thirty days thereafter unless in a particular case a shorter time has been specified by the Department of State.

The Chiefs of Mission are advised that until the Department of State publications and circular notes are revised explicitly to incorporate "domestic partners" as members of the family of diplomatic or consular agent forming part of the household, references to family members in the context of privileges and immunities and related matters other than dependent employment should be understood to include domestic partners as described herein.

It is emphasized that the standard set forth in this note is to define members of the family for the purposes of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and is without prejudice to other definitions of family for other purposes which have an independent basis in international agreements or U.S. domestic law.

USAID tandems now include same-sex couples

As you know, back in June, the benefits announced by the Secretary included allowing same-sex couples where both partners were employees to be considered tandem couples. This means that, like heterosexual married couples where both partners are employees, the Department will make every effort to assign the employees together. It isn't a guarantee for either heterosexual or same-sex couples, but it does make bidding a little easier.

This is one change that affected me personally. The Department had treated my wife and me as an "unofficial tandem" since I joined State, but I notice the difference now that we are official. They are willing to do even more to keep us assigned together, which is both nice for us (because we would consider leaving the service if we couldn't be assigned together) and cost effective for the Department (because if they keep a tandem couple happy, that keeps them from having to spend the amount needed to recruit and train two people rather than just one). And our getting treated like a tandem is not dependent on whether the person making the decisions is open-minded or a dinorsaur.

In their newsletter today, USAID sent out a notice about their tandem couples. The notice makes clear that USAID has followed suit with State and now considers same-sex couples where both are employees to be tandem as well. This not only makes life easier for those couples, but for couples where one person is State and the other USAID as well.

Very welcome news.

USAID/General Notice
PERSONNEL OHR/FSP
01/04/2010


Subject: FS Assignments and Tandem Couples - OHR Registration

As the 2010 Foreign Service Assignment System moves forward, the
Office of Human Resources would like to highlight the process for the
assignment of tandem couples.

USAID ADS 436, Foreign Service Assignments, includes detailed guidance
on the assignment of couples, (which now includes both married and
same-sex partners) who are both members of the United States Foreign
Service. Of particular note is ADS 436.3.14 Tandem Assignments, which
all USAID tandem couples should review.

To register as a USAID tandem couple, please send an e-mail with the
following exact subject line: "Tandem Couple Registration" to:
Courtney Applegate cc: William Seabreeze, Cecilia Pitas, Skip
Kissinger, and Rene Reyes.

Please include for both members of the couple:

1) Name

2) Backstop (for USAID FS employees)

3) Employing organization of non-USAID members

If registering as a same-sex tandem couple, also include in the e-mail
a statement that you have completed the steps indicated at the OHR
website for declaring domestic partner relationships. Those steps
are:

1) Complete the affidavit of eligibility for benefits and
obligations. (The affidavit can be found at the OHR website at
Benefits - New/Changes to benefits, or as an attachment to Executive
Message dated August 4, 2009 entitled "Implementing Benefits for
Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees Serving
Overseas.")

2) Amend the Residency and Dependency Report (Form OF-126) to add
"domestic partner" in the box requesting "relationship."

3) Turn the forms into your Foreign Service Specialist.

OHR makes every effort to accommodate tandem couples when making
assignment decisions, however please note that a tandem couple
assignment is not guaranteed as a result of this tandem couple
registration.

Differences Between Danger and Hardship posts

DiploLife has a good piece on understanding the difference between danger, hardship, etc. kinds of posts.

A Dangerous Life

The U.S. announced today that it was closing the Embassy in Yemen because of Al Qaeda threats there. They will re-evaluate the closure tomorrow. Britain has taken similar measures.

This, and the recent attack on the CIA Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan that killed eight Americans, highlights the dangers faced not just by our military but by those serving our country overseas in a civilian capacity. I hope that as you offer your support, encouragement and prayers for our troops and their families, you remember to do the same for those serving alongside them.

Lawsuit may challenge State Department's lack of equal treatment

Found this piece this morning on Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry. Short and sweet and I disagree entirely. Yes, you would have trouble justifying giving benefits to unmarried same-sex couples if they had the option of federal marriage. Until then, it addresses an inequity. Whether you can just give blanket benefits to any partner, or any adult named by an employee, is more an issue of cost.

Everyone I have ever heard discuss the idea of allowing everyone to designate one person to receive their benefits immediately starts coming up with exceptions. What about the person who has two living parents who need care? What if a person has more than one adult child in need of care? How can you limit it to one? But if you don't, you are right back at unequal treatment. Those with the most dependents get the most benefit from their job, which is hardly equal pay for equal work.

U.S. Foreign Service employees seek benefits for their heterosexual partners - lawsuit may challenge State Department's lack of equal treatment

Law professor Nancy Polikoff is author of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law. In the introduction to her book, she says that couples should "never have to marry to reap specific and unique legal benefits." This article suggests that as employers extend limited benefits to same-sex partners of employees, they face the problem of justifying restriction of these benefits on the basis of sexual orientation. One heterosexual couple has threatened to sue the State Department for discrimination over restricting its extension of benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.

Tips on the Written Exam

It has been a while (September 2002?) since I took the written portion of the FSOT and I know it has changed a good bit in that time. Luckily for you, FS Rookie, who will start A-100 tomorrow, has a more current description of the essay portion of the written exam. You can check it out here.

Happy New Year!

I hope this New Year's finds you happy and healthy and that 2010 is the best year yet for you and yours.

And for all those beginning A-100 on Monday, congrats on embarking on what will hopefully be an excited and rewarding new phase of your life!

Reflections of the Decade

As the decade draws to a close, like many others, I've been thinking about everything that has transpired over the past 10 years.

For me personally, just over a month before the beginning of the decade, I started seeing M. In 2002, she joined the Foreign Service, and before she left for Azerbaijan, we were married in our church. In 2004, I followed her into the Foreign Service, and in 2005, we bought our first home together. From 2005-2007, we served together in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was hard, and we came back to DC to leave the service, but landed in jobs that made us decide to stay. While we were here, we were able to be party to the negotiations for benefits to address the inequities faced by Foreign Service families. And thanks to the benefits Secretary Clinton extended to us, M and I are now an official tandem couple.

Last month, on our tenth anniversary together, M and I made the trek to Massachusetts and were legally married.

So this decade has brought me to the love of my life, good jobs in a weak economy, legal marriage, and two of our four pets. I have no complaints. And we have a great onward assignment, so I am optimistic about the next decade.

Gays and lesbians have made some gains in the past decade. For the first time, we have legal marriage in five states. Domestic partnerships and civil unions in others. Barring Congressional interference, DC, which already recognizes marriages from other states, will join the march toward marriage equality. We have made other advances as well, but they have been uneven, and there is so much more to be done.

Let's hope in the next year, we see more significant advances in equality, like the passage of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And that before the end of the next decade, we see the repeal DOMA and see gays and lesbians live in full equality throughout the U.S.

Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service Want Benefits Too

This should come as no surprise to anyone. But here is the one thing unwed heterosexual couples seem to dismiss. They CAN get married. And as soon as they do, they get all the rights afforded same-sex couples and then some (like, oh, I don't know, health insurance? Pension inheritance?). Same-sex couples, even when they are legally married don't get any of those rights. Some of them have argued that the Department is trying to "force" them to get married. I wish the Department would "force" me to get married...oh wait. I AM MARRIED. Legally married. And I still had to fill out an affidavit to get the partner benefits in the Department because my marriage doesn't count.

So pardon me if I lack sympathy.

Oh, and from what I have heard, it is actually conservatives who are pushing this. Our "natural allies" are the unwitting tools of the religious right, who know that allowing benefits to opposite sex partners will not only make all of the benefits run afoul of DOMA, but will make the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) prohibitively expensive. So we won't be able to receive ANY of the benefits that they could get by a quick trip to Vegas. But they won't lose the ability to get married.

Benefits for gays? Us too, say the unwed
Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service say they should be treated the same.
By Paul Richter
LA Times

Reporting from Washington - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses to gay and lesbian partners.

Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives.

"They should have seen this coming," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who had opposed extending benefits to gays. "It's a Pandora's box."

The family benefits, although a small part of diplomats' overall benefit package, are important to Foreign Service officers. Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for gay partners, although spouses are covered.

Foreign Service officers contend such help is only fair, especially given the conditions they face in remote and often uncomfortable posts.

Conservatives who oppose easing the rules cite the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says that no state shall be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

"A good argument can be made that even these relatively limited steps violate at least the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act," said Peter Sprigg, a fellow at the Family Research Council, which advocates for socially conservative causes.

He said the pressure from unmarried heterosexual couples "illustrates one of our concerns -- that once you open the door to anyone other than married couples, you're beginning a process of the deconstruction of marriage."

Michelle Schohn, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said her group was cautioned during the closing days of the George W. Bush administration about the consequences of demanding family benefits for same-sex partners.

"If you included opposite-sex domestic partners, you could potentially be running afoul of [the Defense of Marriage Act] by creating this 'marriage light' category," she said.

Nationally, most employers -- including almost all public employers -- that extend benefits to same-sex partners also offer them to unmarried, opposite-sex partners, said Ilse de Veer, a principal in the international consulting group Mercer.

Those that offer benefits to same-sex partners but not to opposite-sex mates typically cite heterosexual couples' option of marriage, de Veer said.

Unwed heterosexual couples in the United States comprise about 10% of opposite-sex couples living together, census data show.

Schohn said her group supported extending benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. "They're our natural allies," she said.

The American Foreign Service Assn., the diplomats' union, has not yet taken a position, said spokesman Tom Switzer, but it "has heard from a number of members who believe that the same benefits should be extended to opposite-sex, unmarried partners as well."

A senior State Department official said any benefit extension was up to the White House.

"We're prepared to take that step if that's what the White House wants to do," the official said.

In June, Obama signed a presidential memorandum extending family benefits to same-sex partners -- a concept opposed by Bush's administration.

The issue gained visibility in 2007 when the former U.S. ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, quit the Foreign Service in protest over the issue.

Supporters of extending benefits to unmarried heterosexuals include such key Congress members as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village) and the committee's top Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.

Obama's June memorandum omitted health insurance and pension benefits for same-sex partners. Federal officials estimate that including the broader benefits would have cost $56 million in 2010, several times the price of the narrower benefits.

Some legal experts say including the broader benefits could violate the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that Obama has said should be repealed.

Secretary Of State Clinton's Christmas List For Santa

In the spirit of the holidays, I share a little humor with you from NPR.

Secretary Of State Clinton's Christmas List For Santa
By Frank James

State Department types tend to be seen, and typically see themselves, as very serious individuals dealing as they do with exceedingly weighty matters of foreign policy, of war and peace and everything in between.

But even they like to have a little fun now and again and Christmas seems as good as time as any.

So in the spirit of the season, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley made merry, although in his typically measured way, he chose his words with diplomatic care. (Thanks to NPR's Michele Kelleman for bringing this to our attention.)

CROWLEY: And finally a few of you have asked about the schedule of the secretary of State over the next few days.

I can tell you this morning, the secretary departed Washington. And you know, she stopped at the North Pole for an important bilateral meeting with a well known international figure. During the meeting, in a formal demarche sung to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas," the secretary outlined her aspirations for the new year
.
They include, and feel free to hum along, open and accountable governments, Middle East negotiations, more civilians in Afghanistan, empowerment of women, fewer nuclear weapons, respect for human rights, resolution of historic grievances, treaties through the United States Senate, six-party talks, dialogue with Iran, enough food for people of the world to eat, climate-change legislation and lastly a championship for the Boston Red Sox.
(Cross talk.)

Okay. That last one is not on her list. But Harold Koh and I thought it was important that we mention that here.

ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER: Is it that bad that you have to ask Santa?

Following the secretary's career as we have over the years, we're fairly sure of one thing. She maintained the dignity of her office, and of the U.S., and didn't sit on the "international figure's" knee while making her requests.

State Department Diversity Career Networking Event

The Department is holding a recruiting event next month in room 213 of the Harry Harding Auditorium at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

The event, which will take place Thursday, January 28 from 6 to 8:30 pm, will feature experienced Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service Specialists, and Civil Service professionals talking about the work they do representing our country.

The schedule is as follows:
6-6:30 pm - Registration
6:30 - 7:30 pm - Panel Discussion
7:30 - 8:30 pm - Reception

Space is limited, so you need to register at http://careers.state.gov/GWevent

Briefing on the Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Law

Approximately 40 people representing NGOs such as Council of Global Equality, IGLHRC, Africa Faith and Justice network, Human Rights First, Global Forum, AMFAR, and the Anti-Defamation League attended a briefing yesterday by Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson on the anti-homosexuality law being considered by the Ugandan legislature.

A/S Carson called the legislation in Uganda “draconian” and described his discussions on at least two separate occasions with Ugandan President Museveni and high ranking officials including the Foreign Minister and Defense Minister about this legislation. A/S Carson said, “The U.S. condemns in the strongest terms any violations of human rights and we see the criminalization of homosexuality as a violation of these basic human rights.” He said this legislation was not mentioned as a “sidebar issue” in his meetings but as an issue of concern on the level of Sudan and other major AF issues. In at least one instance, he sought out the Museveni solely to discuss this legislation with him. Museveni gave him assurances he would oppose the legislation.

Kerry Johnson from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Council expressed concern about similar legislation in other African countries as a fallout from the Ugandan legislation, including legislation passed quickly in Burundi and legislation being discussed in Rwanda and Kenya. A/S Carson said he had already discussed this with a high ranking person in Rwanda and asked that he convey his and Secretary Clinton’s concerns to Rwandan President Kagame.

He said the Department is not yet considering consequences if the law is passed, preferring to focus on keeping it from being passed. He did say that a cable or email will be sent to all Ambassadors determining if such laws exist or are being considered in their countries, and that we would address those countries where these laws exist. And he said countries with such laws will now have that listed in the Human Rights Report.

“We will not have a double standard of being opposed to this legislation in Uganda and silent about it somewhere else, ” A/S Carson said.

Marriage Equality in DC: Standing on the side of Love

Just a few minutes ago, Mayor Fenty signed the Marriage Equality bill at the All Souls Unitarian Church. Because of the Home Rule law, Congress has 30 days to stop the bill before it becomes DC law. But hopefully, since they already allowed the District to recognize marriages from other states, they will leave this alone as well.

Besides, don't they have better things to do that take away people's civil rights? Like, I don't know, deal with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraw, the economy, and health care?

You can ready the Washington Post story here.

U.S. Senate committee backs DP bill

Looks like the Senate has forwarded the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act out of committee. This bill would make a big difference in the lives of LGBT Foreign Service families.

U.S. Senate committee backs DP bill

A Senate committee has reported out legislation that would provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-1 on Wednesday to report out the bill, known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee, is the sponsor of the legislation. It currently has 26 co-sponsors.

On the House side, the Oversight & Government Relations Committee reported out its version of the bill last month, 23-12. Lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is the sponsor of the bill, which has 138 co-sponsors.

Let the House-hunting Begin!

Minutes ago, the DC City Council passed Marriage Equality by a vote of 11-2. Mayor Fenty has promised to sign the bill, and the ceremony for the signing is expected to take place Thursday.

DC already recognized same-sex marriages performed out of state, which is why my wife and I plan to buy a place in DC and move there after our next overseas assignment. This just makes it all the sweeter.

You can read more about it in the City Paper here.

Secretary Clinton's speech on Human Rights

Secretary Clinton gave a speech today at Georgetown University detailing the administration’s human rights agenda. She makes several references to LGBT rights as human rights, and to the need for our government to actively protect the LGBT community around the world. I’ve copied some of the relevant passages below. As a friend noted, this may be the first international policy speech to put forth LGBT rights so boldly.

From the text (as written):

“To fulfill their potential, people must be free to choose laws and leaders; to share and access information, to speak, criticize, and debate. They must be free to worship, associate and to love in the way that they choose.”

"Calling for accountability doesn’t start or stop, however, at naming offenders. Our goal is to encourage – even demand – that governments must also take responsibility by putting human rights into law and embedding them in government institutions; by building strong, independent courts, competent and disciplined police and law enforcement. And once rights are established, governments should be expected to resist the temptation to restrict freedom of expression when criticism arises, and to be vigilant in preventing law from becoming an instrument of oppression, as bills like the one under consideration in Uganda would do to criminalize homosexuality.

We know that all governments and all leaders sometimes fall short. So there have to be internal mechanisms of accountability when rights are violated. Often the toughest test for governments, which is essential to the protection of human rights, is absorbing and accepting criticism. And here too, we should lead by example. In the last six decades we have done this – imperfectly at times but with significant outcomes – from making amends for the internment of our own Japanese American citizens in World War II, to establishing legal recourse for victims of discrimination in the Jim Crow South, to passing hate crimes legislation to include attacks against gays and lesbians. When injustice anywhere is ignored, justice everywhere is denied. Acknowledging and remedying mistakes does not make us weaker, it reaffirms the strength of our principles and institutions. "


“And even as we reinforce the successes, conscience demands that we are not cowed by the overwhelming difficulty of making inroads against misery in the hard places like Sudan, Congo, North Korea, Zimbabwe, or on the hard issues like ending gender inequality and discrimination against gays and lesbians, from the Middle East to Latin America, Africa to Asia.”


Secretary Clinton also fielded a question related to LGBT protections during the Q&A session:

QUESTION: "Hello, Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much for speaking to us today. You spoke about the situation in Uganda. Could you please talk to us a little bit more about how the United States can protect the rights of LGBT people in areas where those rights are not respected?"

SECRETARY CLINTON: "Yes. And first let me say that over this past year, we have elevated into our human rights dialogues and our public statements a very clear message about protecting the rights of the LGBT community worldwide. And we are particularly concerned about some of the specific cases that have come to our attention around the world. There have been organized efforts to kill and maim gays and lesbians in some countries that we have spoken out about, and also conveyed our very strong concerns about to their governments – not that they were governmentally implemented or even that the government was aware of them, but that the governments need to pay much greater attention to the kinds of abuses that we’ve seen in Iraq, for example.

We are deeply concerned about some of the stories coming out of Iran. In large measure, in reaction, we think, to the response to the elections back in June, there have been abuses committed within the detention facilities and elsewhere that we are deeply concerned about. And then the example that I used of a piece of legislation in Uganda which would not only criminalize homosexuality but attach the death penalty to it. We have expressed our concerns directly, indirectly, and we will continue to do so. The bill has not gone through the Ugandan legislature, but it has a lot of public support by various groups, including religious leaders in Uganda. And we view it as a very serious potential violation of human rights.

So it is clear that across the world this is a new frontier in the minds of many people about how we protect the LGBT community, but it is at the top of our list because we see many instances where there is a very serious assault on the physical safety and an increasing effort to marginalize people. And we think it’s important for the United States to stand against that and to enlist others to join us in doing so."

U.S. Senate to markup DP bill

This is from today's DC Agenda, the former Washington Blade. This bill will mean the world to LGBT Foreign Service Families.

U.S. Senate to markup DP bill

A Senate committee has set Wednesday as the day it will markup legislation that would provide benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, DC Agenda has learned.

The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee will consider the bill — known as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act — during a business meeting starting at 10 am. Dec. 16. The markup will occur in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The panel will consider amendments to the legislation before voting on whether to report out the bill to the Senate floor.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee, is the sponsor of the legislation. It currently has 26 co-sponsors.

On the House side, the Oversight & Government Relations Committee reported out its version of the bill last month, 23-12. Lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is the sponsor of the bill, which has 138 co-sponsors. A time for a floor vote has not yet been announced.

What If You're Gay?

As part of their financial blogs, the New York Times has started a new feature called "What If You're Gay?" on the financial costs to same-sex couples because of the nearly 1,200 federal benefits of marriage we are denied. The feature emerged after the times did a piece last month on the high cost of being gay. I have added a link to the new feature below:

What If Your're Gay?

Secretary Clinton Responds to Congressional Concern about Uganda

I found this in today's HRC Backstory. I am pleased to see the Secretary stand up for us...still don't see myself serving in Uganda any time soon!

Secretary Clinton Responds to Congressional Concern about Uganda; Text Message Her to Show Your Support
Ty Cobb

In a written response to an October 30 letter from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Gary Ackerman and Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she shares Capitol Hill’s concerns that Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill would “create fear, promote hatred, and potentially divide communities” in Uganda. Moreover, she stated that “the United States has urged Uganda to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, harassment, or discrimination.” According to the Secretary’s letter, she continues to monitor the bill and will continue to speak directly about the bill with Ugandan officials, human rights activists, and international donors.

The United States was the first government to issue a public statement condemning the proposed legislation. If you want to let the Secretary know that you oppose the proposed Ugandan bill, send her a text message at 90822 with a message like this: “Thank you for condemning the anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda. Please continue to stand up for international LGBT human rights.”

As a brief overview, the Ugandan bill:

* increases the penalty for consensual homosexual conduct from 14 years to life in prison;

*limits the distribution of HIV/AIDS prevention information through a provision criminalizing the “promotion of homosexuality;”

* creates a crime of “aggravated homosexuality,” punishing anyone who is HIV-positive with death for having consensual same-sex relations, even if the relations are informed and safe and regardless of whether the person is even aware of his or her HIV status; and

* exposes anyone in Uganda, including HIV/AIDS outreach experts, to a criminal sentence for not reporting to the government within 24-hours anyone who engages in homosexual activity.

HRC continues to work closely with the Council for Global Equality, a coalition of international human rights activists, foreign policy experts, LGBT leaders, philanthropists and corporate officials to encourage a clearer and stronger American voice on human rights concerns impacting LGBT communities around the world. The Council has taken a strong lead in condemnation of the Ugandan “Anti-Homosexual” bill.

From The Advocate: Brit to U.S.: Come Out of Your Closet

From The Advocate:

Brit to U.S.: Come Out of Your Closet
By Julie Bolcer

A former high-ranking official in the British government urged the U.S. LGBT community to come out of its “national closet” and join others around the world in pressing to protect gay populations under siege in places like Uganda, Jamaica and Eastern Europe.

Phillipa Drew, a former British government official and an out lesbian, spoke during a panel at the 25th annual International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference in San Francisco, where she heralded the role the United States could play on the world stage, provided the country’s LGBT leaders would “come out of your national closet and join us.”

The panel took place on Friday afternoon, according to GayPolitics.com. It was moderated by Julie Dorf of the Council for Global Equality, with participants that included Drew; Klaus Wowereit, the openly gay mayor of Berlin, Germany; former U.S. ambassador Michael Guest; former U.S. Congressman Jim Kolbe; and Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Rights Commission.

Gay House members say gay-friendly bills are near

This from today's Washington Post is encouraging news for LGBT Foreign Service families. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in particular would mean insurance coverage and retirement benefits for the partners of federal employees. Now if we could just ditch DOMA...

Gay House members say gay-friendly bills are near
By LISA LEFF
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two of Congress's three openly gay members said Saturday that the U.S. House is poised to pass bills to provide health coverage for the same-sex partners of gay federal workers and to protect all gay and transgender employees from job discrimination.

Speaking to an international conference of gay politicians in San Francisco, U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., said they expect a domestic partner benefits bill to come up for a vote by the end of the year and the employment bill to reach the floor early in 2010.

The lawmakers said they are also confident that the House will include in the annual military spending bill next year a provision to repeal the law that bans gays from serving in the U.S. military. All the measures face a harder time in the Senate following the death of longtime ally Sen. Edward Kennedy, but Baldwin and Polis said they remained optimistic.

"I'm hopeful we will see those three pieces of legislation make it all the way, or damn close," said Baldwin, who is sponsoring the federal worker domestic partner bill.

Office of Personnel Management director John Berry, the Obama administration's highest ranking gay appointee, told the conference that the president strongly supports the trio of gay rights measures.

Including transgender workers as part of the legislation to ban job discrimination and lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gay service members may especially meet opposition in Congress, Berry said. But he said that with a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities controlling the House and the Senate, victories were "within our grasp."

"The tide of public opinion is in our favor. The forces of intolerance are on the run. We have a president who has been clear in his support for our community and in his commitment to our equality," Berry said. "This is the best opportunity we will ever have as a community, and shame on us if we don't succeed."

Although gay activists have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving more quickly on their concerns, both Polis and Baldwin said the pressure should be directed at Congress because the president can not act alone.

"LGBT leaders need to be focusing in on the people we need to win over instead of just trying to talk to our friends and being angry they haven't delivered," Polis said.

Ambassador Huebner's swearing in

This afternoon, I attended the swearing in for Ambassador David Huebner, the first openly gay Ambassador selected by the Obama administration and the first to be confirmed by the Senate (who had no issues with his sexuality...what a refreshing change!).

He was sworn in by Vice President Joseph Biden, who commented that America is at its strongest when our full diveristy is shown.

Ambassador Huebner, in his remarks, said that he was the grandson of an immigrant coal miner, the son of a meat packer, and that he was the partner of a person of a different race but the same gender. And that in America, such a progression is not only possible, but natural.

Amen.

Best of luck to Ambassador Huebner and his husband of 20 years, Duane, as they head out to New Zealand.

A New Diplo-draft?

I'll answer that question quickly: not likely.

Secretary Clinton announced during her testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning that as a counterpart to the troop increase announced last night by President Obama, she expects to triple the number of civilians in Afghanistan by January. That will bring the number to somewhere around 1,000. Many of these civilians will be Foreign Service.

There was much kerfuffle over the proposed directed assignments to Iraq during the previous administration. Much of that kerfuffle should have remained in house and likely would have, had the media not been invited to the now infamous town hall that was supposed to be an employee-only forum for folks to voice their concerns. Announcements of the new policies concerning assignments to war zones being announced first in the media and only later to employees didn't help.

Things are different now.

First, we have been through Iraq. We now see that it is possible, though still difficult given our small numbers, to staff the embassy. We all understand now that we will need to serve at one of these posts at some point and perhaps more than once. We have adapted and are continuing to adapt.

Second, I think there has always been more support for the war in Afghanistan. People seem more willing, eager even, to serve there. To do their part.

So I think the increase will stress but not break us.

I think we will do what we have done for the last few years:

We will step up.

We will volunteer.

And no one will have to be directed.

World AIDS Day

Today marks the commemoration of World AIDS Day. As part of her World AIDS Day statement yesterday, Secretary Clinton announced that the 2012 International AIDS Conference will be held in Washington, DC, a direct result of the dropping of the US ban on HIV+ travellers coming to the United States.

Secretary Clinton said:

Today, I am pleased to announce that, with the repeal of the ban, the International AIDS Society will hold the 2012 International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. This conference will draw together an estimated 30,000 researchers, scientists, policymakers, healthcare providers, activists, and others from around the world.

So as we look to 2012, we have to continue to seek a global solution to this global problem. On World AIDS Day, let us renew our commitment to ensuring that those infected and affected by HIV—the woman on treatment who is supporting her family, the child who dropped out of school to care for sick parents, the doctors and nurses without adequate resources— that all those who have joined together to fight this pandemic will someday live in a world where HIV/AIDS can be prevented and treated as a disease of the past.

This was the same statement where she gave some of the strongest criticism by the Administration so far of LGBT discrimination, saying:

Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it, but also to combat discrimination more broadly. We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide. It is an unacceptable step backwards on behalf of human rights. But it is also a step that undermines the effectiveness of efforts to fight the disease worldwide.

A Right to Say "I Do"

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post had an excellent editorial that I wanted to share with you:

A Right to Say "I Do"
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The truth is that if Maj. Nidal Hasan, the accused killer of 13 people at Fort Hood, had entered the officers club there with a nice handbag on his arm, perhaps a Gucci tote, he would have been out of the Army by the end of the week. Since he was merely antisocial, a misfit, an incompetent psychiatrist and a likely Islamic fanatic, he was retained and promoted. This says something about America. On the subject of gays, we are a tad nuts ourselves.

That irrationality comes at me on an almost daily basis. One of the most prominent and strongly held planks of the Republican Party's right wing -- its only wing, it seems to me -- is opposition to same-sex marriage. I know this from the sheer huffy-and-puffiness of commentators such as Bill O'Reilly.

In a recent column, O'Reilly directed us to read something called "The Manhattan Declaration," which was released late last month by a coalition of conservative Christians -- Catholic and Protestant alike. It makes three points. The first concerns abortion, and it will surprise no one that the signatories oppose it. The third -- I know, I know, I'll get back to No. 2 in a moment -- concerns "Religious Liberty" and the occasional efforts of government to make religious institutions conform with public policy. This is a point worth considering.

No. 2 -- the longest section of the declaration -- applies to same-sex marriage. It amounts to a confession of confusion, a cry by the perplexed who have come to think that same-sex marriage is at the core -- the rotten core -- of much that ails our society. Everything from divorce to promiscuity is addressed in this section without any acknowledgement that same-sex marriage, like all marriage, is a way of containing promiscuity (or at least of inducing guilt) and that not having it would not reduce promiscuity in the least. This I state as a fact.

The declaration calls the out-of-wedlock birth rate the "most telling and alarming indicator" of a collapse of the "marriage culture." Yes. But that collapse occurred long before same-sex marriage became an issue, not to mention a reality, and so one has nothing to do with the other.

It remains true that the family is the single best place to raise children. That being the case, same-sex marriage would serve the same purpose. I know of children raised by same-sex partners and they seem no worse for the experience, although -- O'Reilly beware -- they lack a certain knee-jerk antipathy to gays, lesbians, transsexuals and similar people of dissimilar sexuality.

Some of the declaration is couched in religious terms, and with that I cannot argue. But it is its appeal to common sense that I find so appalling. When it comes to same-sex marriage, the declaration conjures up a future where "polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships" will be legal. Not likely, but this is not the intent of the movement to legalize same-sex marriage any more than marriage between men and women was supposed to permit Henry VIII to have six wives or for Elizabeth Taylor to have seven husbands, one of them twice.

The reasoning in the declaration is so contorted that it brings to mind the dire warnings from years past of what would happen if blacks and whites were allowed to marry -- not to mention similar references to what the Almighty purportedly intended. This sort of comparison irritates many African Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, but I can see no reason why the civil right extended by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) is any different than the one sought by gays and lesbians. Marriage has certain economic advantages, and to withhold them based on nothing more than religious preference or, at bottom, a certain disgust entrenched in convention, is clearly a civil rights matter.

In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're for. It's doubtful that the voters of Virginia would have allowed Mildred and Richard Loving to tie the knot back in 1967 any more than the public in general approves of same-sex marriage today. Such a legal case, spearheaded by the political odd couple of David Boies and Ted Olson, is likely to reach the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land -- and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Digger comments: Let's hope so.

Congrats, Ian!

The White House released a statement announcing several nominees for key posts. This one is particular is one I already knew about and am really happy to see made official:

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

Ian C. Kelly, Nominee for U.S. Representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador, Department of State.

Ian Kelly has served as the Spokesman for the State Department since May 2009. He is a Senior Foreign Service Officer, with the rank of Minister Counselor. Prior to that, Mr. Kelly was acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs from January to May 2009, with responsibility for Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus, and the Director of the Office of Russian Affairs from 2007-2009. From 2004-2007, he was Counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Mission to NATO. From 1994-1996, Mr. Kelly was Director of Democratic Initiatives to the Newly Independent States at the State Department, coordinating the activities of nearly a dozen federal agencies involved in democracy building in the former Soviet Union. In addition to NATO, he has been posted overseas in Rome, Ankara, Vienna, Belgrade, Moscow, Leningrad, and Milan. Mr. Kelly holds a Bachelor’s degree from St. Olaf College, a Masters degree from Northwestern University, and a Doctorate from Columbia University.

I am happy about this announcment for many reasons. Obviously, it is nice to see a career FSO who is Public Diplomacy coned get put forward for such a prestigious position. But mostly, it is because I know Ian. My wife and I both have worked with him, and he is not only an exceptional officer, but a great mentor and all around decent person. The greatest compliment you can give someone in the service is that you would serve with them anywhere, and I would serve with Ian Kelly anywhere.

So, CONGRATS (hopefully soon to be) Ambassador Kelly!