Would you advise young -- and not so young -- people to join the US Foreign Service?
Before getting dumped into admin leave limbo, my position was at the Board of Examiners, where for over a year since returning from Iraq I administered the Oral Exam and helped choose the next generation of Foreign Service officers. I was competent at the task, got a good performance review and, after a year on the job, it was only after my book came out that State decided I could not work there.
So, I spent a lot of time around people interested in a Foreign Service career. They did not ask for advice and at the Board we did not offer it. However, since my book came out and I have gotten some media attention, ironically more people now approach me with your same question about joining the Foreign Service. Too much irony these days.
What I tell them is this: think very, very carefully about a Foreign Service career. The State Department is looking for a very specific kind of person and if you are that person, you will enjoy your career and be successful. I have come to understand that the Department wants smart people who will do what they are told, believing that intelligence can be divorced from innovation and creativity. Happy, content compliance is a necessary trait. The Department will not give you any real opportunity for input for a very long time, years, if ever. Even Consular work, which used to offer some space, now has fallen victim to standardization as posts must conform web sites to a single model, for example. There is no agreed-upon definition of success or even progress at State, no profits, no battles won, no stock prices to measure. Success will be to simply continue to exist, or whatever your boss says it is, or both, or neither. You may never know what the point is other than a Congressional delegation go away “happy,” whatever that even is.
At the same time, State has created a personnel system that will require you to serve in more and more dangerous places, and more and more unaccompanied places, as a routine. That sounds cool and adventurous at age 25, but try and imagine if you'd still be happy with it at age 45 with a spouse and two kids. What are your core obligations with a child who needs some extreme parenting as you leave your wife at home alone with him for a year?
Understand that promotions and assignments are more and more opaque. Changes in Congress will further limit pay and benefits. Your spouse will be un/under employed most of his/her life. Your kids will change schools for better or worse every one, two or three years. Some schools will be good, some not so good, and you'll have no choice unless you are willing to subvert your career choices to school choices, as in let’s go to Bogota because the schools are good even if the assignment otherwise stinks. You'll serve more places where you won't speak the language and get less training as requirements grow without personnel growth. As you get up there, remember your boss can arbitrarily be a used car salesman who donated big to the President's campaign. Make sure all these conditions make sense to you now, and, if you can, as you imagine yourself 10, 15 and 20 years into the future. It is a very unique person who can say “Yes” truthfully and after real soul-searching.
"If you’re going to torpedo your career, you should have a good reason. And this is a story that needed to be told. I wish Peter Van Buren all the best in what appears to be his second career as a writer. And I hope that some day, a person in a position to make a difference will have read and carefully considered his story before pulling the trigger on a similar crusade mission."
from Dan Simpson of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette associate editor. He previously served as United States Ambassador to the Central African Republic (1990–92), Special Envoy to Somalia, and Ambassador to the Congo-Kinshasa (1995–98).
"Mr. Van Buren's best question is, "So how did we end up accomplishing so little when we meant well?" He tries to answer it effectively from the corners of Iraq that he worked in, but I suspect that the real answer lies at a pay grade much higher than his in a maze of bad decisions, too-short tours of duty and massive American misunderstanding of Iraq and its people. The book is short, very readable and has humor as well as profound points in it. If the State Department is given the opportunity, Mr. Van Buren's next assignment is likely to be Mogadishu or Garry Trudeau's Berzerkistan."
Image via WikipediaHey! That's going to really shut him up.
Yesterday, AFP reports that Mr. Van Buren was escorted out of the State Department on Monday and barred from returning while officials there decide what to do next with him. Our own source said that Mr. Van Buren has been placed on administrative leave for the next couple of weeks. Admin leave is like "we'll pay you so we don't have to see you." I supposed that's until they can find the citation in the FAM that would fit this "problem." Mr. Van Buren's current assignment reportedly had also been curtailed. If true, that means they just took away his desk and chair, too. So even if he is allowed to return after his admin leave, he won't actually have a job to return to.
As an aside, Mr. Van Buren's book is the main selection in our house's book of the
month club. Our 5th grader is currently reading it at home and at
school. I don't think it's going to damage the kid in any way.
Mr. Van Buren's book is highly critical of the State Department's work in Iraq, the accompanying blog, just as critical. Not sure if the punishment is for the book, the blog, or for both. No one would speak on the record. The suspension letter did not cite the book, but did cite as one of the author's faults, "an unwillingness to comply with Department rules and regulations regarding writing and speaking on matters of official concern."
This is the first time, as far as memory goes, that the State Department had actually yanked somebody's clearance over "publishing articles and blog posts on such matters without submitting them to the Department for review." Whereas, in the past, I was aware of the shock factor in threatening bloggers with this in-house version of the "nuclear" option, this is the first time where somebody actually pushed the red button. And in a very public way.
This is the part where I should also note that although Mr. Van Buren is the first ever blogger escorted out of the building, he was only the latest casualty in the tigers can bite you escapades inside the State Department. Some FS bloggers have been unable to get suitable ongoing assignments - or even normal responses to their bid lists. As one recently told me, "these officers have not asked for extraordinary favors: just regular, humdrum postings that fall comfortably within the bidding rules, that are not heavily bid or bid on by superstars, and for which they are completely competent. ....they have heard only silence."
Assignment issues, blogger disappearances and PVB's case undoubtedly will bring a big chill to the FS
blogosphere. Don't be shocked if folks go back to the 50's and start
hiding their journals under their pillows, as was quaintly suggested elsewhere.
But here is the big question. Now that State had unleashed the "nuclear" option and suspended Mr. Van Buren's security clearance, what other threats can you cite to help with behavior modification inside the Big House? He's really going to stop talking/writing/giving interviews now that he had his clearance suspended, or now that he is barred from Foggy Bottom.
You think?
You suspend his clearance hoping that will scare him enough he'd stop blogging; he did not. You take away his badge, hoping that will scare him enough he'd stop blogging; he did not. You bar him from entering any door of the State Department hoping that will scare him enough he'd stop blogging; he did not. You take away his desk and his chair hoping that will scare him out of his wits he'd stop blogging. Instead, on October 27, he was the guest of the National Press Club, his appearance covered by WaPo's Joe Davidson. The hometown paper has finally caught up with the news.
And look just now -- the book even meets the approval of NYmag, which ranked the book significantly higher than the Mexican cyclops shark. See the unintended consequences here?
So how do you solve a "problem" like Peter Van Buren? Well, certainly not the way the State Department is "solving" it right now.
First, I think it must be said that the State Department handled the book clearance badly. Somebody should have owned up to the snafu instead of gunning after the author. The 30-day timeline for clearing the book lapsed. It was not the author's fault regardless of whether or not the person responsible for clearance had a meltdown, a baby, was sick or was on vacation. But State like any old and cumbersome bureaucracy is loath to admit to its own mistakes. They cleared Condi's book within the 30-day timeline, yet Mr. Van Buren's book was not afforded the same courtesy. The State Department, in short, broke its own clearance procedure. And when Mr. Van Buren published the book as allowed under its own regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State accused him of "unauthorized disclosures of classified information," and asked his publisher for redactions six days before the book hit the stores. Can you imagine them doing that to Secretary Rice's book? Nope. Big fry, small fry; are there different rules?
But hey - like Joe Davidsonsays, "The best way for the federal government to publicize a book? Attempt to muzzle the author."And it's free!
Second, given the potential fallout from a book about reconstruction in what has always been an unpopular, contentious war, and given how much money we're spending on reconstruction projects over in Iraq, somebody higher than a Deputy Assistant Secretary should have read the book, cleared his/her calendar and spoke privately with the author. Instead of sending the tigers with sharp teeth. I have not meet Mr. Van Buren in person, and he may be far from cutesy and cuddly, but he has written a vivid, engaging account of our reconstruction debacle in Iraq seasoned with absurdities, great and small. To dismiss him as nothing but a disgruntled employee is just plain brainless. Public opinion is already against the Iraq war. Add to that the rest of the domestic headaches that the American taxpayers have been suffering in the last several years. And what do you get? A public relation disaster, with the State Department as the big, bad growling tiger in a starring role. It does not help that State appears to be acting like a big, bad growling tiger trying to eat an angry mouse. Grrrr....diplomatic skills exercised? Zero.
Remember when Matthew Hoh resigned over Afghanistan? He had two tours of duty in Iraq and five months under his belt in Afghanistan when he quit. Hoh received offers of new gigs from both Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke. I understand, he even got some face time with the VPOTUS. I think both ambassadors understood that in our top foreign policy engagement, they cannot be perceived as tone-deaf to the concerns of their man on the ground.
I'm not saying State should have offered Mr. Van Buren a fancy gig in Paris. But at the very least, somebody from the Seventh Floor should have attempted to speak with him. He, after all, spent 23 years with the State Department and cared enough to write the Iraq Experience down in a book. With his name on it. Not even the folks interviewed by USIP were willing to put their names down in that Oral History Project. But no one bothered to speak with him. A DAS alleging his disclosure of classified info did eventually write to him, albeit belatedly, and not really to listen to what he had to say.
It's as if the State Department is proud of all its smart people except for those with the guts to speak up, or write a critical book. Or are they only proud of our smart diplomats when they dissent in private, in a channel that the American public never ever gets to hear, and that which the organization is free to ignore? The guy who talks too much not only gets a good hearing in my book, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to contribute in fixing the problems that he cites. No, we do not shoot the messengers in our book. Most especially if they are bearing bad news. But that's us. Unfortunately, that is often the case in the bureaucracy, the State Department perhaps more so than most. A dead messenger is a good messenger, no news is good news. Ta-daa! And all is great in Iraq. Amen.
Three, Mr. Van Buren is not without faults. He posted articles in his blog without obtaining clearance as required in the FAM. Mr. Van Buren, like his employer, also broke the clearance procedure in the FAM. He even admits to that. But I don't know of any FSO who blog who had requested clearance for his/her every blog post. The regs make no distinction whether what you write is critical or not, a clearance is required on matters of official concern. And since State's purview is the entire world, that covers just about everything. So to go after Mr. Van Buren in a singular fashion invites the suspicion that he is targeted for his critical views, not just for the blog but also for his book.
Four, that convoluted business of the use of a disclaimer. You put up a disclaimer to ensure that what you write is not attributed to the State Department or the US Government.
A spokesman went so far as confirmed Mr. Van Buren's disclaimer, telling NPR that "the author's
views are his own, and not necessarily those of the State Department." And really now, if you read his blog, it is hard to imagine anything similar coming out from Mr. Toner or Ms. Nuland from State's Public Affairs shop.
And then you have the following disclaimer from the personal blog of the Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Innovative Engagement:
...... is an employee of the United States Department of State. She has been with the Department of State for fourteen years in both traditional Information Technology roles and also as the Deputy Director for the Department’s first social media office – The Office of Innovative Engagement. The viewpoints, opinions and ideas expressed here do not represent the official opinion or policy of the United States Government or the Department of State.
She went on to blog about her Twitter cliff notes writing about her agency's social media policy:
Public engagement should only be conducted by trained professionals. You should not tweet about something you are not an expert in. An example would be if you are not a consular officer do not talk about the visa or passport process. Direct those people to the appropriate subject matter expert.
Twitter is a live community of humans and reacts the same way as people do when engaging with them in real life. You should focus on developing a “human voice” or persona for your community. This means no generic tweets or “ever green” tweets! Mass messages across all Department accounts are also considered to be an inappropriate use of Twitter.
[...]
Before using any new social media tools for official State Department purposes, it is important that you are familiar with State Department Policy on Social Media: 5 FAM 790. You should also review the Managing Your Social Media field guide. This guide is very important to helping you plan, create, and execute a successful social media campaign.
Personal vs. Professional Self:
You must have permission to tweet in your professional capacity. Permission is granted by the head American officer in the section or the Office Director for domestic offices.
If you are tweeting in your professional capacity, you must disclose the account as being an official Department of State account.
If you are tweeting on someone’s behalf, you must state who is on duty. Transparency is critical to building trust with your community.
When tweeting in your personal capacity you should not talk specifically about your job. See 3 FAM 4170 for additional information.
Whether or not this deputy director had clearance to post this policy item in her blog as a personal item is between her and Public Affairs. However, I do have to point out that both blogs used disclaimers claiming to be writing in their personal capacities. Mr. Van Buren blogs about Iraq and affairs of the state, all on matters of official concern. Ms. Deputy Director blogs about the Department's social media policy, also a matter of official concern. One is under investigation, the other as far as I know is not.
According to the regs, some of the factors to be considered in overcoming the presumption of private capacity with the use of a disclaimer include, but not necessarily limited to: 1) The current or former position, rank, and/or duties of the employee; 2) The relationship between the employee’s position, rank, and/or duties and the subject matter of the speaking/teaching/writing.
It is perhaps worth noting that Mr. Van Buren, a midlevel FSO was a PRT guy in Iraq from 2009-2010, and if my source is correct, is now an employee without a job. The Deputy Director presumably is in the GS scale; could be GS-14/15 and the incumbent in her office.
By the way, if you find 5 FAM 790, the State Department
Policy on Social Media significantly imperfect and hard to wrap your head around, you
have the deputy director to thank for that. She reportedly is the
co-author of this first social media use policy for the Department of
State.
Finally, there is that notion that they drummed into your head from A-100 on, that as a Foreign Service Officer, you are on duty 24/7. They like saying that. And for the most part, folks in the Foreign Service understand that to be true. You like to think you have a personal life until you have to report to the Regional Security Officer who you slept with the previous night. Or until they tell you -- hey, you are actually blogging on official time, since you are considered on duty 24/7. They have not told you that? Don't worry, they'll eventually come around to telling you that when they can't figure out what to do with bloggers.
In any case, you are on duty 24/7 until the government decides that you are not. Remember the case of Douglas Kent, the U.S. consul general in Vladivostok who was involved in a
car accident in October 1998 while driving home from his office? State concurred with DOJ that he was not on duty 24/7 when the accident occurred. Here is a trip down memory lane via U.S. Diplomacy:
After
Kent left the post on reassignment, a Russian citizen injured in the
accident sued Kent in his individual capacity in a district court in
California. According to an August 31, 2006, “AFSANET” message from the
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), “The Department of Justice
with State Department concurrence refused to certify that Kent was
acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred,”
thus undermining his claim of immunity. Ultimately, with AFSA
supporting FSO Kent’s legal defense, the case went to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled in his favor by determining
that he was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident
took place.
The Kent case clearly demonstrates that while Foreign Service
personnel, especially those in senior positions, may consider themselves
on duty 24 hours a day while stationed overseas and thus fully
protected, particular circumstances may put those immunities at risk.
In theory, the rules are there to protect you. In practice, the rules can mean many different things to many different people -- human interpretation, unless it's done by droids, see? The folks who write the rules can break it with no consequences. The folks who are covered by the rules are also allowed to break it but somebody's gotta pay the price. If you come to think of it -- the big fry, small fry rules only really sucks if you're the small fry. But if offends our sense of fairness.
In the end, organizations particularly one as traditional and hierarchical as the State Department cannot tolerate people falling out of a straight line; it's contrary to its sense of order and proper functioning of the organization. And really -- "open door," "innovative engagement," "smart power," and whatnot can only go so far. An organization like State must do what it must do to protect its "brand," (like any commercial company, only with less money); it is after all, one of the best places to work in the Feds world.
I doubt if the State Department will fire Mr. Van Buren for "disclosure" of alleged classified information in his book, or for linking to a WikiLeaks cable, or even for writing/speaking without clearance. That would make it look petty and seem vindictive and would drag this case long and possibly into court. But organizations are not without power; it always has an ace up its sleeve, so to speak. In this case, a catch-all slam dunk section in 3 FAM 4130 otherwise known as "Standards for Appointment and Continued Employment," could be the ace up its sleeve. A much used up phrase of "poor judgement" is like a flyswatter that can be used for employees writing outside the chalked lines, as well as employees who patronize prostitutes.
by Lois Beckett ProPublica, Oct. 14, 2011, 12:41 p.m.
By the end of this year, the State Department will decide whether to give a Canadian company permission to construct a 1,700-mile, $7 billion pipeline that would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas.
The project has sparked major environmental concerns, particularly in Nebraska, where the pipeline would pass over an aquifer that provides drinking water and irrigation to much of the Midwest. It has also drawn scrutiny because of the company's political connections and conflicts of interest. A key lobbyist for TransCanada, which would build the pipeline, also worked for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [1] on her presidential campaign. And the company that conducted the project's environmental impact report had financial ties to TransCanada.
Here's our breakdown of the controversy, including the benefits and risks of the project, and the concerns about the State Department's role.
Potential benefits — energy security and jobs for Americans — and how they're disputed
Proponents of the project point to two main benefits for Americans. First, it would improve America's energy security [4], because it would bring in more oil from friendly Canada and reduce our dependence on volatile countries in South America and the Middle East. Secondly, the pipeline would create well-paying construction jobs and provide a broader economic boost to the American economy. Labor unions have supported the project [5].
Critics of the project have also questioned whether the pipeline's oil, once processed in American refineries on the Gulf Coast, would actually be sold to Americans rather than being exported for sale elsewhere [9]. As a New York Times editorial opposing the pipeline noted, five of the six companies [9] that have already contracted for much of the pipeline's oil are foreign companies — and the sixth focuses on exporting oil.
The Washington Post, which editorialized in favor of the pipeline [4], said this should not be a major objection. "The bottom line remains: The more American refineries source their low-grade crude via pipeline from Canada and not from tankers out of the Middle East or Venezuela, the better, even if not every refined barrel stays in the country," the Post editorial stated.
Cozy relationships with the State Department — and a compromised environmental report
Because the project crosses the U.S. border, it requires a permit from the State Department. As part of that process, the State Department did an environmental impact report [10]. The study concluded that, if operated correctly, the pipeline would have "limited adverse environmental impacts." But a New York Times investigation found that the company that the government hired to conduct the study had significant financial ties to TransCanada [11] — and that this conflict of interest "flouted the intent of a federal law" requiring federal agencies to select contractors that have no potential interest in the outcome of the project being evaluated.
Environmental groups have also scrutinized the relationship between State Department officials and TransCanada's representative in Washington. Paul Elliott, who worked on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, was actively lobbying the State Department and Congress [12] about the project for a year and a half before he officially registered as a lobbyist, according to State Department email messages made public by the environmental group Friends of the Earth [13]. Elliott did not comment on the emails, but a TransCanada spokesperson said he was simply doing his job as a lobbyist.
The emails showed a friendly relationship between Elliott and his State Department contact, who wrote "Go Paul!" [12] when Elliott secured the support of a key congressman for the Keystone project.
TransCanada had originally sought permission to use a higher-than-usual pressure in its pipeline [15] but publicly backed away from the request in response to the concerns of citizens and politicians that higher pressure might increase the risk of leaks and environmental damage.
A WikiLeaks cable also revealed that a different U.S. diplomat had given PR tips to Canadian officials about the project. As the Los Angeles Times noted, the diplomat "had instructed them in improving 'oil sands messaging,' [16] including 'increasing visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories.'"
Concerns about water contamination across the Great Plains
The proposed route of the pipeline passes over the Sandhills wetland of Nebraska — and over the most important aquifer in the nation, the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water and irrigation to a large swathe of Midwestern states [17].
James Goeke, a hydrogeologist and professor emeritus [24] at the University of Nebraska, wrote on The New York Times' website that the geography of the aquifer — there'd be clay between the pipeline and the water, and much of the aquifer is uphill from the pipeline's proposed location — means that a leak in the pipeline "would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole." He suggested the government "require TransCanada to post a bond for any cleanup in the event of a spill," and noted that in particularly vulnerable areas, TransCanada has promised to encase the pipeline in cement.
Leaks and spills
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry a diluted form of tar sands, a type of natural petroleum deposit. Environmentalists argue that the tar sands, or "dilbit," mixture that the pipeline would transport [25] is more corrosive than typical crude oil, and thus might cause more leaks in the pipeline.
These fears were heightened by an oil spill in Michigan [26] that leaked roughly 800,000 gallons of tar sands into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in July 2010. The spill came within 80 miles of Lake Michigan, and a year later, the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Enbridge, the energy company responsible for the spill, to conduct further cleanup, citing pockets of submerged oil covering about 200 acres [27] of the river's path.
The Christian Science Monitor has a good, brief summary of spills [3] on TransCanada's existing U.S. pipeline, and notes that according to the State Department estimate, "the maximum the Keystone XL could potentially spill would be 2.8 million gallons along an area of 1.7 miles [3]."
Concerns about eminent domain
Some property owners whose land the pipeline would cross have spoken out against the company's approach [2], particularly the fact that a Canadian company is able to use eminent domain to acquire the use of private land.
TransCanada says it is compensating landowners fairly, and notes that, "Our permit does allow us to use eminent domain [6] to acquire an easement and provide compensation for the landowner. Keystone XL always prefers to avoid the use of eminent domain, and if we cannot reach an agreement, then we turn to the independent processes/hearings that are established in Texas and other U.S. states."
Broader environmental concerns
Environmentalists also object not just to the pipeline itself but to the start-to-finish process of refining tar sands, which has a heavy impact on the environment, including global warming. As a Stanford University professor wrote [29] on The New York Times' website:
Available evidence suggests that oil sands, on a "well-to-wheels" basis, have 15 to 20 percent higher greenhouse emissions than conventional oil. This is because of increased energy demand during extraction and the use of high-carbon fuels like petroleum coke. Also, water pollution concerns plague mining-based projects that produce large volumes of tailings (a contaminated, watery waste product).
Critics of the project [8] argue that approving Keystone XL could have a "chilling effect" on efforts to create green jobs, and that it would demonstrate that the U.S. is not serious about its climate change leadership — and that Canada is not serious about trying to reach its Kyoto targets.
But as many have noted, denying approval to Keystone XL wouldn't stop tar sands production. As the Heritage Foundation's David Kreutzer argued [30]: "Block the XL pipeline if you think the environment will be better served by shipping Canadian oil an extra 6,000 miles across the Pacific in oil-consuming super tankers and then refining it in less-regulated Chinese refineries."
Remember that reminder in your A-100 class about not ending up on the pages of the Washington Post? There's a reason for it. Just about everybody reads WaPo; an appearance there is like seeing your career flashed before your eyes.
So far, except for a recent triple showing in Foreign Policy, published by the Slate Group, a division of the Washington Post, Peter Van Buren has managed to avoid landing on the pages of the hometown newspaper. Or perhaps I should say, the hometown newspaper has so far managed to avoid covering him and his book. That's good, right?
Except that he just got profiled in Saturday's New York Times. Not so good. Plus, whatdayaknow, the NYT writer actually identified the Green Grass Ambassador. Oh dear, lord, this is not/not good. Anytime now, we'll have follow up news about the real story about that sod trucked in from Kuwait.
All I can say is expeditionary diplomacy does not/not really require green grass. But dammit, did he have to include that in the book?! It makes folks look sort of bad in bright lights: the guy who ordered the sod, and the folks who were just following orders and procured the sod, laid the sod and watered it night and day. No one hit the pause button and said, "Wait a minute, isn't $2 million worth of sod a tad too much?" If somebody did the honorable thing and resigned over the darn sod to green the embassy, we did not get the press statement on that.
Below is an excerpt from NYT's U.S. Envoy Puts Match to Bridges With Iraq Tell-All:
Ample ink has been expended on the war, defending it, attacking it or just trying to understand it. What makes Mr. Van Buren’s account so striking is its gleeful violation of the spirit — and perhaps the letter — of the written and unwritten code of America’s diplomatic corps.
[...]
In anything but diplomatic language, he skewers the Army’s commanders and the Iraqis, the embassy, its staff, and even its ambassador at the time, Christopher R. Hill, though not by name. He takes sarcastic aim at the ambassador’s Sisyphean effort to grow a lawn in the sprawling embassy compound beside the Tigris River.
[...]
The book and the publicity surrounding it — including an Op-Ed article by him in this newspaper — have infuriated Mr. Van Buren’s colleagues. To them, he has betrayed his loyalty to the well-traveled, multilingual, highly educated professional cadre that is the Foreign Service.
[...]
“If you feel that strongly about policies you feel are misguided and harmful, you do the honorable thing and resign before tearing your colleagues apart in public,” said a diplomat who served in Iraq, speaking, as is more typically the case, on the condition of anonymity.
[...]
Mr. Van Buren’s most serious accusations involve the waste of money spent on the reconstruction, $63 billion and counting. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) has chronicled numerous abuses amounting to billions of dollars, but Mr. Van Buren’s account abounds with the granularity of projects too small for Sigir to bother with.
[...]
As the Foreign Service requires, Mr. Van Buren submitted his manuscript for review in September 2010, shortly after he returned from Iraq. The rules state that the review must be completed within 30 days. When he heard nothing, he took that as assent.
[...]
A State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is a personnel matter, said the department had in fact begun discussions with Mr. Van Buren over the book’s contents, though belatedly. Publishing without awaiting the required review amounted to a violation, the official said. It is not clear what further action, if any, the department intends to take.
In speculating about the fallout post publication of that book, I suggested that if somebody has already read the book, the Spokesman could say something like,
let's see -- "We know this books is coming out. We do not agree with Mr.
Van Buren's views but his views are his own. We have nothing further to
say about this issue."
NPR reported that Fresh Air contacted a spokesman for the State Department, who
declined to respond to Van Buren's book except to say that the author's
views are his own, and not necessarily those of the State Department.
Expulsion: Calls in Ireland for expulsion of papal ambassador over child abuse
"Revelations that the Vatican told Irish bishops they could conceal allegations of clerical child abuse have led to calls for the expulsion of the papal ambassador to Ireland, traditionally one of Catholicism's most-devout strongholds." {The National}.
Appointments India | Nirupama Rao to take charge as Indian envoy to US shortly
Outgoing foreign secretary Nirupama Rao would be the next Indian ambassador to the US, the Indian government announced on Saturday. Rao will succeed Meera Shankar to become India's second woman envoy to the US. {Times of India}
Appointments India | Interim U.S. Envoy to India Inherits Challenges
South Korea | Female diplomats lead lonelier lives than males
Jeong, a 16-year veteran, left Seoul on a three-year assignment in 2008, but usually, and almost certainly for entry-level diplomats, overseas assignments are for five years - three years in an advanced country and two more years in a developing country. And that, in most cases, means separation for just as many years from their spouses or children.
[...]
Kim Sang-jin, head of personnel management at the Foreign Ministry, said about 95 percent of male diplomats are accompanied by their spouses when serving at an overseas post, while 95 percent of female diplomats go off without spouses.
[...]
To compensate for financial losses from spouses abandoning jobs, the Foreign Ministry provides a salary to spouses accompanying diplomats to overseas posts, but it is only equivalent to 25 percent of a diplomat’s salary. Even if money is sufficient, most men would not trade the money to leave after working in their fields for many years, some female diplomats said. {Korea JoongAng Daily}
Interview: Foreign Policy with Our Man in Damascus, US Ambassador Robert Ford
U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford had a wide-ranging telephone interview with Foreign Policy last week. "Ford sharply criticized the Syrian government's continuing repression against peaceful protestors and called on President Bashar al-Assad to "take the hard decisions" to begin meaningful reforms before it is too late. Not, Ford stressed, because of American concerns but because of the impatience of the Syrian opposition itself. "This is not about Americans, it is about the way the Syrian government mistreats its own people," Ford stressed repeatedly. "This is really about Syrians interacting with other Syrians. I’m a marginal thing on the sidelines. I’m not that important." {Foreign Policy}
Interview: Mercury News with John Roos, U.S. Ambassador to Japan
Q In more than two decades in Silicon Valley, you honed negotiating skills in the land of tech. Now you are playing the role of diplomat. What has it been like to pivot from influential Silicon Valley lawyer to diplomat?
A Many of the same skill sets are brought to bear. Diplomacy is fundamentally working with people, bringing people together to deal with difficult issues. Obviously, the issues are very different. {Mercury News}
Defections: A second Burmese diplomat defects
"A Burmese diplomat has requested asylum in the United States, apparently in response to a crackdown by his government after the defection of a more senior diplomat earlier this month. Soe Aung, the fourth-ranking official in the Burmese Embassy in Washington, wrote to the State Department on Wednesday requesting asylum, according to the pro-democracy group U.S. Campaign for Burma. Soe Aung confirmed his defection in a brief interview with the Burmese Service of the Voice of America." {WaPo}
Arrests: Turkey arrests 14 al-Qaida members planning US embassy attack
"Turkish police captured the 15 suspects in Ankara, the western city of Bursa and the nearby town of Yalova, and seized 700 kilograms (1,500 pounds) of chemicals used in bomb making, two assault rifles, ammunition and maps of Ankara. The suspects were planning to attack the US Embassy in Ankara and unidentified foreign targets, the the Anatolia. They were brought to police headquarters in Ankara on Tuesday night and were being questioned by anti-terror police." {Today's Zaman}
New US Embassy in Valletta, Malta:
Douglas Kmiec, former US ambassador to Malta and Professor of Law at Pepperdine University in California writes about the newly opened US Embassy in Valleta: "What a new US embassy represents"
[...] Because of Malta’s geographic proximity to Libya, many have asked my view about American involvement in the Mediterranean region, and they seem to ask it with special curiosity upon learning that I helped superintend, along with Rick Mills, the completion of a $125.5 million new embassy compound. Knowing my general frugality (this former ambaxxatur cycles the 10 miles round-trip to and from his office at the university), they need to hear the basis for the beautiful, but pricey, new structure in Ta’Qali.
[...]
An embassy of sufficiently ample size and personnel is justified because it is reasonable to anticipate Malta’s own willingness – respecting her constitutional commitment to neutrality, of course (you see, I did learn something!) – to become an even more prominent “partner for peace”, by, for example, signing onto the multilateral reciprocal status of personnel memorandum. {Times of Malta}
New US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya?
U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) today released the following statement regarding the Administration’s decision to recognize the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate governing authority of Libya:
“We welcome the Administration’s decision to recognize the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate governing authority of Libya. This is an encouraging step, which demonstrates America’s commitment to support the Libyan people as they fight to liberate their country from the Qaddafi regime and establish democracy. Recognition should now open the door for more robust U.S. and international support for the TNC, including facilitating their access to the frozen assets of the Qaddafi regime for the benefit of the Libyan people and to support the NATO mission. We strongly urge the Administration to remove any remaining obstacles to the TNC’s ability to gain access to these frozen assets as soon as possible. We hope that our allies and partners that have not yet recognized the TNC will now do so. We also urge the Administration to increase our diplomatic presence in Benghazi, designate a U.S. Ambassador to the TNC, and give the TNC’s representatives in Washington and New York full diplomatic rights and privileges.”
Joe Feuerherd, the editor-in-chief of National Catholic Reporter, died in late May after an 18-month bout with cancer. On June 4, the recently resigned US Ambassador to Malta, Douglas Kmiec pens "With faith, insight, Joe Feuerherd held all to account" for NCR. The piece is about Mr. Feuerherd, of course, but also contains a rehashing of that OIG report on his tenure at the US Embassy in Malta. Excerpts below:
The untimely death of Joe Feuerherd is much regretted. Just a few weeks ago I had the benefit of Joe's writing in an April 8 column entitled "Kmiec takes friendly fire." The column presented Joe's analysis of an event that should otherwise not have been newsworthy: namely, a routine Office of Inspector General report that found my then-Embassy in Valletta, Malta to be accomplishing, even exceeding, its mission goals.
[...]
In the middle of the night, I was awakened by a State Department assistant secretary instructing me to boycott the assembly and the keynote the next day. I manifested hesitation, and then objection. Boycotting would get international notice and put into jeopardy a substantial amount of EU goodwill available to our still new President Obama. Had the State Department been instructed by the President to have me stand down, I asked? Presidentially nominated Ambassadors confirmed by the Senate have no business questioning assistant secretaries, I was told. I persisted and requested some assurance before morning that the President was in agreement with the instruction to boycott. That assurance was not forthcoming.
Ambassadors are described as Chiefs of Mission, and told in writing by the President that we answer to him alone unless he specifically delegates a matter to the Secretary and he has made that plain. That’s the right letter for President Obama to write, but there are many in Washington working for its disregard. Democratic voices during the second Bush presidency raised objection to extravagant presidential power claims, rightly so, but they need be careful not to then so immunize the bureaucracy that it feels immune to presidential direction altogether.
[...]
Benedict XVI has set out the perils of coerced secularism. Others have speculated that it is the exclusion of the light of the Divine that has cast the State Department into the “foggy bottom.” Malta, of course, is a small country with a rock solid Catholic tradition that shows welcoming hospitality to those of other Christian denomination as well as those of Islamic and Judaic belief. Malta basks in gentle wind and warm sunshine most of the year. What happens in this ancient country in the Sea will go on largely unaffected by the hostility of a few in the State Department who insist that religion and politics are to be avoided or hidden from view in the mists of a nominal fog shrouding a less than candid disclosure of its motivating values or strategic interests. Respect by avoidance (and thus unfamiliarity) is a possible position; it just isn’t Obama’s. Obama finds mutual respect more likely advanced by greater understanding.
These "others" who "have speculated that it is the exclusion of the light of the Divine that has cast the State Department into the “foggy bottom,” -- well, don't you want to meet these speculators briefly to ask them one simple question?
According to our most reliable source, Wikipedia, Foggy Bottom is one of the oldest late 18th and 19th-century neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. The area is thought to have received the name because its riverside location made it susceptible to concentrations of fog and industrial smoke, an atmospheric trait that did not prevent the neighborhood from becoming the original location of the United States Naval Observatory.
Concordia German Evangelical Church, located at 1920 G Street NW was founded in 1833. Today the congregation is The United Church, and is the oldest religious community remaining in Foggy Bottom.
What does it mean -- that all of the above are also in the "foggy bottom"?
The WashDC Leaky Cauldron is leaking once again; it's a permanent leak, what else is there to say. VOA News reports that senior administration officials say U.S. President Barack Obama will nominate his top Russia advisor as the next ambassador to Russia.
Obama plans to nominate Michael McFaul, the architect of the administration's so-called "reset" policy under which the Obama administration sought to re-energize bilateral ties that were widely seen as strained under the administration of former President George W. Bush.
The officials, who spoke Sunday, did so on condition of anonymity.
The unnamed senior administration officials, of course, leaked the yet to be announced nomination to the NYT which writes:
In selecting Mr. McFaul, Mr. Obama is breaking with recent tradition in Moscow, where all but one of eight American ambassadors over the last 30 years have been career diplomats. But in choosing someone from his own inner circle, Mr. Obama underscored his determination to keep Russian-American relations a centerpiece of his foreign policy after his early push to reset the relationship following years of growing tension.
Image via WikipediaThe Guardian reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad based on local TV stations who named the specific official in Pakistan. We have stripped the name from the extract below for obvious reasons.
If true that the CIA chief had been outed by the ISI, that's going to make a bad situation, exceptionally worse. And gagging the media, of course, will make the embarrassing Bin Laden news go away. True dat. Via the Guardian:
The Pakistani government has introduced curbs on international media in the garrison town where Osama bin Laden was killed, ordering television stations to cease broadcasting and some reporters to leave town.
On Saturday night the television regulator, Pemra, ordered nine international channels, including the BBC, CNN and Fox, to stop "illegal" broadcasts from Abbottabad, where Bin Laden's house has been the subject of intense media coverage
It suggested the channels could not broadcast from Abbottabad or anywhere in Pakistan without obtaining a licence, a previously unknown requirement. Simultaneously, government officials contacted several British, Australian and American journalists, instructing them to leave Abbottabad because their visas did not permit them to stay.
The government also took measures to stop more journalists entering Pakistan. At diplomatic missions in London and New Delhi, Pakistani officials said there was a temporary hold on media visas.
The measures appeared to be part of a concerted government effort to stem a tide of critical media coverage over thorny questions about how Bin Laden lived for up to six years in a garrison town that is home to three regiments, a military academy and thousands of soldiers.
[..]
Until now most western criticism has been directed at Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies. Some US officials have insinuated that the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) helped to harbour Bin Laden.
Now the ISI is hitting back with judicious media leaks. In a move bound to infuriate the US, on Friday several Pakistani television stations named the CIA station chief in Islamabad as [REDACTED]; the stations said he had been given a verbal roasting by the ISI chief, General Shuja Pasha.
The naming is sensitive because the previous CIA chief in Islamabad quit his position over security worries last December after being named in a court case and the national media. Some US officials blamed the ISI for the leak.
Image via Wikipedia“You cannot realistically expect the leader of the free world to stop everything to rescue you from bad guys.”
That's what one close White House adviser reportedly said according to the outgoing US Ambassador to Malta, Douglas Kmiec in a farewell letterto his Maltese friends published in the Times of Malta on April 24.
It looks like the "bad guys" are the bureaucrats at the State Department, and not just the scorpions at the Office of the Inspector General who were alleged to have engaged in a "sting-back" in their critical report for a legal opinion from the 1980's. Oh, dear.
I have posted here previously about the resignation of the Ambassador Kmiec following a report from the Inspector General's Office of the State Department released in early April.
While this is certainly not the first high profile resignation we have seen this year, this is the first time that we've seen a departing ambassador engage the press on his defense following his very public resignation.
From media accounts, it looks like Ambassador Kmiec was waiting for a response directly from the White House but did not get one.
“Presumably, if the President, unlike the Inspector General, was happy with my work he could easily affirm with a letter, phone call, or even a brief mention in a speech,” Prof. Kmiec said, adding, however, that he had only heard from the State Department so far.
In a telephonic interview with TPM Muckraker, Ambassador Kmiec complains about not being able to speak directly to President Obama:
"What is really heartbreaking is not to be able to speak to the President about this, about the distortion -- intentional or unintentional, clumsy or politically motivated somehow -- by the Inspector General," Kmiec told TPM. "I love this work so much, and was so honored to be doing this for the country and for this President in particular."
"The thing that is so saddening to end this way, is that I haven't lost any of my enthusiasm for the President's ability to lead the country. I have seen it applauded and greatly appreciated here and in international settings," Kmiec said.
"I mean if I could get Barack Obama to fly into the Malta airport for 30 seconds, I think I'd be canonized. The man is extremely respected, and I think everything we've done has just magnified that respect, and in an honest way," Kmiec said.
Ambassador Kmeic also took some issues with unnamed State Dept officials and their runaway red pens:
One particularly offensive overreach, says Kmiec, was when State Department officials edited an article Kmiec wrote memorializing his father in a way that changed his father's views.
"I thought it was highly offensive to have my father's memorial piece edited by the Department of State, and indeed what was edited out was reference to his faith and mine and also there was some substantive disagreement with views my father held, so they changed them," Kmiec said. "So there was a certain aggravation there." [...] He also wrote a piece for the L.A. Times for what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday that the State Department rejected because it wasn't related to his mission.
But in his farewell letter to his Maltese friends, he also writes that the "The soulless, secular censorship of a few is not representative of the many."
Imagine if he had a blog.
A double standards in ambassadorial resignations?
Ambassador Kmeic wanted to leave post in mid-August and had apparently been told he should leave by the end of May. The Times of Malta helpfully points out the US Ambasador to China Jon Huntsman who resigned in February was allowed to stay for three months. Ambassador Huntsman's resignation was reported by NYT in late January with April 30 as its effectivity date. Excerpts from the Times of Malta:
Outgoing US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec has been asked to leave his post in Malta two-and-a-half months earlier than he had planned, and will therefore miss the July opening of the new embassy.
Prof. Kmiec resigned last week after being chastised by the US State Department for focusing too much energy on his religious beliefs. In a letter, he invited President Barack Obama to visit Malta and reaffirm his credentials, hinting that his resignation should not be accepted.
However, the State Department said his resignation had been accepted and asked him to leave on May 31 rather than August 15 – the date he had proposed to coincide with the Feast of the Assumption.
Prof. Kmiec, who writes an article in today’s paper complaining on “soulless secular censorship”, told The Sunday Times that the State Department felt it was “usual” for him to have a shorter notice period.
However, the current US ambassador to China, who resigned in February, reportedly to prepare a Republican presidential bid, was allowed to stay on for three months.
Such double standards could indicate there is more than meets the eye behind Prof. Kmiec’s departure
He also pointed out that those who took considerable personal risks in backing Mr Obama seemed not to be given reciprocal support when needed.
“But political friendships, of course, are not generally personal ones. One wag once said: ‘If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog’.”
[...]“Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.” I do too.
The country's Foreign Minister Tonio Borg has now waded into the resignation, expressing disappointment and surprise that the Ambassador is stepping down.
“He was and still is a good Ambassador who has served his country well, while winning the hearts of many,” Dr Borg said.
“Far from hindering the carrying out of his duties, his faith actually made him stronger and helped him gain respect and admiration.”
But a John Guillaumier of St Julians writes rather aptly:
If the next US Ambassador to Malta is a Muslim, it would be undiplomatic of him to use his post as ambassador to promote Islam, just as it was wrong for Prof. Kmiec to use his post as ambassador to promote his personal religious values.
Well, that is a mighty good point, don't you think?
Then, of course, one must ask -- who remembers that 1989 memo, by the way? Are we to believe that the OIG has been waiting all this time to seek vengeance for an opinion written in the last century? That's like attributing artificial emotional intelligence to a bureaucracy .... I'm sure we have yet to invent a bureaucracy that's as smart as that.
There are a couple of things that may be lost in this minor controversy. The fact that all Foreign Service folks must agree to publicly support the policies of the US Government even if they personally disagree with them. That basically means, the policy of the administration of the day whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration. The second and no less important is the fact that FS professional cannot have a personal opinion on official matters. By virtue of their positions as representatives of the U.S. Government (and the higher the ranks, the more it matters), they can only talk about the official positions of the government they represent, not their own personal opinions.
Remember that Political Counselor cornered by an important local contact? Contact says, "Just between us, what is really your opinion on XYZ? Without batting an eyelash, the Pol Counselor replies, "But I don't have a personal opinion, it is however, my government's opinion that XYZ should XYZ."
If they can't do that, they can disagree in a dissent cable (all internal at State, not for publication). Or they quit.
Political appointees ought to know this like the back of their hands before they agree to their appointments. When they take the short cut to join the diplomatic service and represent the United States of America, even they, must follow the rules, and there are tons of them. And this includes, I'm almost sure of this -- the landline and virtual connections that hook them directly to the mother ship with its corresponding multiple hierarchies. And the mother ship, like it or not, is in Foggy Bottom, not the White House, even in the latter is the appointing authority.
