PD Commission KIA by Congress; Welcome Back, Matt Armstrong

On April last year, we posted about Matt Armstrong, author and publisher of MountainRunner.us, when he was sworn in as the Executive Director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD). At that time, he also suspended his popular blog, including the publishing of guest posts, at MountainRunner.us.

Last December, after 63 years of existence, the Commission was KIA by Congress.  And the USG saved $135,065, the Commission's operating budget for FY2011 (salaries excepted).  Besides the Executive Director, the only permanent staff of the ACPD, the Commission was supported by a detailee from DOD and two interns.  At the time of its closure, there was no Y-tour FSO working with the Commission.  Apparently, the senator who blocked ACPD's reauthorization admitted he did so not because of merit, or value, or mission, or demand, or even actual cost. The gesture was symbolic and that ACPD happened to cross the senator's sights at the wrong time; would he have seen DOD's $547 million for public affairs?

Patricia Kushlis of WhirledView writes: "An effective Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission is the single bipartisan governmental entity that reports to both the executive and legislative branches about what the US could and should do to improve the country’s image abroad. Given the fragmentation of US public diplomacy activities since USIA’s demise, this country is more than ever in need of an independent watch-dog body tasked with putting the jig-saw pieces together enough, at least, to see, report on and critique the most critical parts - now flung across a multitude of departments and agencies."

You can read more about ACPD's demise from the Public Diplomacy Council, ComOps Journal and eVentures in Cyberland.

We're happy to welcome Matt back to the blogosphere; just wish it were under different circumstances.
 
Matt has a new post on the the role of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs?  A comparative look on the tenure and gaps of the Under Secretary for "R", "P" and "J" should be cause for concern.  Excerpt below:

The last report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy looked at the turnover in the position of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  The Commission found that the position has been unfilled for over 30% of the time since it was established.  Moreover, the average tenure of the six Under Secretaries since 1999 was about 500 days.  Indeed today, the office remains unencumbered since June 30, 2011, while Tara Sonenshine awaits confirmation by the Senate.  The office is never “vacant” as there is always a someone in an “acting” capacity.  Today, Assistant Secretary Ann Stock runs the office in lieu of a confirmed Under Secretary.


The Commission compared the tenure of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs with two peers: the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs (as of January 1, 2012, known as the Under Secretary for Civil Security, Democracy, and Human Rights) and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.  The differences in tenure length and gaps in tenure is stark.

The table, taken from the Commission report, is through December 16, 2011.  As Sonenshine is unlikely to be confirmed before February due to the Senate’s calendar, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs will be unfilled for an aggregate of more than 1,400 days, or nearly 1 out every 3 days over the past thirteen years.
[...]
But does this office continue to sit in a leadership position? 
[...]
[H]ow much “communication” does R oversee and is its domain eroding? Back to the Commission report, it concludes with questions for further research:

1.  What do the long gaps between appointments of Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs indicate about views on the role and skills necessary for the position, or the importance of public diplomacy and the role of the State Department in leading and coordinating Government activities that intend to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics?
2. What do the short tenures indicate about the challenges of the position?
3. Does the Under Secretary adequately support the careers of public diplomacy officers in light of leadership turnover and frequent and long periods when the position was unencumbered?

I suggest other, more blunt, questions:

• How does the office stay in the game and not get circumvented, or bypassed, and its resources and missions not get poached without an Under Secretary at the helm?
• Has the Under Secretary’s role with other federal agencies, let alone within the Department, diminished due to uncertainties and shifting priorities resulting from the turnover and short tenures?

[...]
This might be a good time for the Congress, the State Department, and the White House to have a board of experts look into how the Government organizes and conducts activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.

Read in full here.

Related articles

• R we there yet? A look at the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy (and Public Affairs) (mountainrunner.us)
• United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy - no more (toinformistoinfluence.com)

US Hip-Hop Diplomacy "Recovers" in Karachi and No On Stage B-Boying by American Diplomats

The hip hop group on tour in Pakistan performed in Islamabad, was detained briefly in Rawalpindi, was barred from performing in Lahore (long shadow of Raymond Davis?), then on November 24th, successfully performed at the port city of Karachi.

One may be tempted to call this a 50-50 success, given that the group skipped Peshawar (for good reasons), was unable to perform in Lahore (for fuzzy reasons) but did have successful performances in the capital city of Islamabad, and the country's largest city of Karachi. But is the ability to be on stage in two out of four U.S. posts in Pakistan sufficient to gauge the success of this program in a country where anti-American protests and demonstrations have tripled since the beginning of 2011? Probably not. One might wonder at the effectiveness of a program like this since it only reaches the more or less westernized and educated parts of the country as compared to the more rural, less educated, more suspicious variety of the local population.  I hope somebody back at State's Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau is looking at the performance metrics of programs like these.

On a side note, I am pleased to report that none of our diplomats in Karachi -- not the Consul General or the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) or Cultural Affairs Officer (CAO) went on stage to try their luck with mcing or breakdancing even if it looks like a whole lot of fun. Whew to you, too!

Via YouTube/rashidkhan1973, the FEW Collective with Amjad Sabri Qawwal:

Related articles

• Life & Death in Karachi: A Review of Instant City (changinguppakistan.wordpress.com)
• US 'hip hop diplomacy 'fails to heal rift with Pakistan' (telegraph.co.uk)
• US hip-hop diplomacy hits speed bump in Pakistan (sfgate.com)
• Karachi rally will decide Pakistan's future: Imran (nation.com.pk)

Photo of the Day: Where can I buy a key chain for this?

From US Embassy Pakistan via Flickr:

NAS Vehicle Handover

This is supposedly a handover; can't say from looking at the photo who's giving what to whom. He's holding the gigantic key with two hands, maybe he is giving it to her? And she seems happy to receive the key with one hand, or is she giving it to him?  What vehicle has a key as huge as that?  We're still thinking what this means but we'd like to know where one can buy a key chain for this.

Simple lesson here - if you bother to take a picture, and bother to upload it online, please bother to put some caption.




 

Confirmations: USTR, ACPD, UN

On October 21, 2011, the U.S. Senate confirmed the following nominations:

PN106 *       EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Michael W. Punke, of Montana, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative,with the Rank of Ambassador.

PN107 *       EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador.

PN274 *       UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Anne Terman Wedner, of Illinois, to be a Member of the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy for a term expiring July 1, 2013.

PN982 *       UNITED NATIONS
Ann Marie Buerkle, of New York, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-sixth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

PN983 *       UNITED NATIONS
Russ Carnahan, of Missouri, to be a Representative of the United States of America
to the Sixty-sixth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Photo of the Day: If this is over $50, I'll have to file a gift report

The photo below is from the photostream of the U.S. Embassy Kabul in Flickr. I don't know how many folks have their hands on the embassy's social media platforms. But for a while now, the photos uploaded to Flickr either have no captions or includes one caption for all the photos in the set. Which kind of defeats the purpose of having a photo gallery up, because viewers need to have some context on what they're looking at. 

The photo below, as well as all the 67 photos included in the set has the following caption:

The Acting Minister of Higher Education Sarwar Danish, together with NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Kolinda Grabar and U.S. Embassy Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy Eileen O'Connor, joined university chancellors and others at the Ministry of Higher Education in Kabul to celebrate the progress of the PAS-funded NATO SILK Afghanistan Program on Tuesday, Oct 11, 2011.(Department of State)

It does not matter that NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Kolinda Grabar is not in this photo. You get the idea; these folks were all there according to the caption.  During a big do on Silk Afghanistan.  I have no idea if this is a dressmaker's program or a silkworm propagation program either, hard to know without context, see?  The Silk Road? I really don't know.  Some 68 photos of smiling people but no photos of silk dressmakers or silkworm, or the Silk Road, for that matter, which is rather confusing to tell you the truth. 

The photo above shows the U.S. Embassy Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy Eileen O'Connor receiving a gift. I imagine she's saying, "Thank you very much for this gift; if this is over $50, I'll have to file a gift report."

Of course, that's probably not what she said to the gifter, but without context, we're left to our own imagination.

Could Not Stick to "No Comment," the State Dept Finally Has Nothing and Something to Say on Peter Van Buren's Case

Image via WikipediaI don't know why I thought the State Department could hold its tongue and stick to its "no comment" response on the Peter Van Buren case. Apparently, somebody did not read the memo.

An unnamed State Department spokesman gave The Atlantic Wire a statement late last week.  Excerpts below:

"Regarding Mr. Van Buren, we do not discuss individual personnel matters," a State Department spokesman said in a statement to The Atlantic Wire today.
[...]
The State Department's statement to The Atlantic Wire did defend their policy of investigating information that is potentially "improperly disclosed", presumably in response to Van Buren's assertion that they are unfairly targeting him alone for linking to the WikiLeaks materials and publishing critical opinions on his blog.

"The Department of State has an obligation to try to ensure that official information is released in an authorized and appropriate manner, that classified and other protected material is not improperly disclosed, and that the views an employee expresses in his or her private capacity are not improperly attributed to the U.S. government.  Foreign Service Officers and other employees know that they are expected to adhere to the rules associated with meeting these obligations.

All Department employees who write for publication in their private capacity on matters of official concern are required to have their work reviewed by the Department in compliance with longstanding clearance requirements and procedures set forth in the Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual."  

I expected the State Department to stick to its "no comment." But if it had to say something about this, I also expected its spokesman to say something a tad more creative not something as lame as this.

Remember that Chinese saying - more talk, more mistake, no talk, no mistake?

Peter Van Buren's book apparently had been cleared by the appropriate channels in the Big House in compliance with the requirements in the FAM, so why bring that up? Is the spokesman saying without saying that Mr. Van Buren's book did not follow the appropriate clearance procedures, that's why he is under investigation? C'mon folks, either the book was officially cleared or not; you can't have it both ways. If it was cleared, then stop harassing the guy so he can sell the book. If it was not cleared, why have you not frog-marched the author out of C. Street -- given that you talk about  "classified and other protected material" in the same statement?

As to clearance of blog posts and tweets, best not go there since that's a tricky, tricky thing that may show a rather selective flavor.

And oh, a note on disclaimers -- the spokesman's statement says that the State Department obligations include ensuring that "the views an employee expresses in his or her private capacity are not improperly attributed to the U.S. government."

Well, hookay, but what kind of disclaimer would be acceptable when the guy already had this marked prominently on page 6 of his book:

The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the US government. The Department of State had the chance to review this book in manuscript form before publication, as required by 3 FAM 4170. Th e Department of State does not approve, endorse, or authorize this book.

If that disclaimer is not acceptable, then I don't know how else you can write a disclaimer that would say the same thing and be acceptable.

Remember that Chinese saying - more talk, more mistake, no talk, no mistake?

Make that spokesman write this a hundred times on the "R" Front Office's whiteboard, please.

Attacks in Afghanistan: Afghan Jack Bauer and Eagle Four, Wheeere Are Yoooou?

Spencer Ackerman of Danger Room made a note of the video put out by NATO-OTAN on the US Embassy Kabul attack yesterday.

The video appears designed to undermine that propaganda effort. Soldiers, Marines and their Afghan and foreign counterparts work calmly — but fiercely in tandem to direct rifle fire against the insurgents. Message: We got this — even if the Taliban just shattered the sense that NATO and the Afghan government at least had the capitol locked down.

At least six people are dead and 19 wounded, mostly Afghans, in a fight that subsided mere hours ago. We’re unaware of any previous effort from the U.S. military that got video out to social media nearly as quickly.

The 20-hour long attack on the US Embassy in  Kabul which is apparently "not a very big deal" according to Ambassador Crocker quoted here by the BBC is just the latest in the growing trend of attacks in and around Kabul.

Back in August, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism. Below is part of the entry under Afghanistan:

2010 Terrorist Incidents: IED attacks, direct and indirect fire, and suicide attacks increased in 2010. The increase in ISAF troop presence from 100,000 to 131,730 and their kinetic activities likely led insurgents to increase their activity. There was a 72 percent increase in total kinetic events, with IEDs representing 25 to 40 percent of this activity. According to ISAF, the total number of civilians killed in 2010 exceeded those in 2009, totaling more than 1,408; the vast majority of these deaths were caused by insurgent elements.
[...]
While insurgent activity occurred daily, high profile attacks included:   

• On February 26, 16 were killed, including nine Indian nationals, during an attack on two Indian guesthouses.

• On May 28, the Taliban destroyed one school and threatened two others in the Lakan area of Khost; the attackers demanded the release of certain detainees before they would allow the schools to reopen.

• On July 2, four were killed and 24 were wounded in an attack on the Kunduz office of Development Alternatives Incorporated.

• On August 7, Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami claimed responsibility for killing 10 members of a medical mission team in Badakhshan Province.

• On September 26, a British national who was kidnapped by insurgents was killed during a rescue attempt.
• On October 8, the Kunduz governor Engineer Mohammad Omar, was assassinated.

• On December 19, a suicide attack in Kabul killed five ANA officers.

Here's a list of attacks from January - June 2011, the list will be longer in next year's report.

Which makes me wonder where was Afghanistan's Jack Bauer or Eagle Four in all these?

Here is the blurb on "Eagle Four" via vimeo:

Eagle Four (Oqaab Chaar) is the first ever 13 part action/drama series shot entirely in Afghanistan. The series follows an elite Afghan Police Unit working to fight crime and insurgency amidst the chaos of war. The series was written and directed by Sean Lynch alongside a team of talented Afghan filmmakers and crew at TOLO TV.

I can't tell which one is supposed to be the Afghan Jack Bauer but watch the video:





EAGLE FOUR from Sean Lynch on Vimeo.


NPR notes in its report that television drama production is expensive anywhere, but neither the show's Afghan producers nor the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is willing to tell reporters how much the program costs. Um, I wonder why not....

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden confirmed that the embassy provides funding for the program.

"We see this as an opportunity not only to help support the Afghan media sector, but hopefully also encourage a dialogue among Afghans about the role of the police in society and their growing capabilities," she said.

Hayden refused to say what it is costing U.S. taxpayers to fund the 13 episodes of this season's program. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the information.

Apparently US Embassy Kabul has also funded, in addition to "Eagle Four,"  a youth-oriented soap opera set at a Kandahar university and a reality show-style documentary about army life.

David Ensor who was Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan and now Director of the Voice of America recently gave the keynote speech at USIP's Media in Conflict: The Evaluation Imperative.

No transcript of that speech appears to be available online. But nextgov.com reported about the event and talked about "Eagle Four." Excerpts below:

The shows are all meant to serve some public policy function, Ensor told an audience at the U.S. Institute of Peace on Friday. "Eagle Four," for example, is aimed at raising public respect for Afghan police officers, who are widely regarded as corrupt, while the youth-oriented soap opera focuses heavily on female students who would have been banned from attending university during Taliban rule.
[...]
While the shows have proved generally popular among the war torn nation's TV watchers, it's far from clear whether they've had any tangible policy effect, such as raising army enlistments or improving respect for public officials.

The embassy recently hired a consulting firm to gauge the programs' effectiveness, Ensor said, including through lengthy surveys of audience attitudes over time.
[...]
Ensor's total budget for media projects at the embassy, he said, was about $183 million over 18 months.

So there you are, some $183 million, not sure how much went to the production of these entertaining shows.  I'm still waiting for the result of NPR's FOIA request. I, too, would like to know how much taxpayer money was used to fund the 13 episodes of Eagle Four. 

Do you know? Or is that classified info we'd only find somewhere in the Internets? But ...but... it's entertainment news, what about the public interest?

Related articles

• Kabul attacks 'not a big deal' says US ambassador (guardian.co.uk)
• Taliban assault on Kabul ends after 20 hours (guardian.co.uk)
• Taliban attack Kabul, target U.S. embassy, NATO buildings (thestar.com)
• Gunmen attack US embassy in Kabul (independent.co.uk)
• No big deal? US ambassador's baffling response to Afghan assault (guardian.co.uk)
• The West is whitewashing the attack on Kabul (theglobeandmail.com)

Which Ambassador is planning to unload his/her DCM shortly and other curtailment news

This blog recently received the following search queries:

Ambassador window of time to ask DCM to leave

When can the ambassador ask the DCM to leave

Uh-oh! Uh-oh! Like when can I toss my DCM out the window?  That last one is a joke, diplomats do not/not get physical, so no actual window tossing ... What? Oh, no, wait a minute, it's like a metaphor actually like Ms. Bachmann's.    

My guess is that the person doing the search is not in the career service and who else can you ask on matters like this but the Googles.  In diplo-speak, the query is about curtailment which means shortening an employee’s tour of duty from his or her assignment. It may include the employee’s immediate departure from a bureau or post.  In this instance, possibly that of the deputy chief of mission in some unknown embassy (where about a third of total posts is encumbered by political ambassadors). 

The Foreign Affairs Manual, fondly known as the FAM says that curtailment is an assignment action, not a disciplinary one. Ha-ha! Oops, did I laugh out loud? Hookay, it may not be a disciplinary one but it follows the employee around, kind of like a dark cloud that follows Eeyore all over the place.

Now on to the law of unintended consequences --

Remember the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark who according to the OIG report asked her DCM to leave post in January 2010?  That resulted in a DCM staffing gap of 9 months. That's 270 days where the chief of mission even with an acting DCM may be forced to function as her/his own executive officer dealing with the nuts and bolts of running an embassy.

The regs says that the ambassador can initiate an involuntary curtailment, which gives the chief of mission wide authority over this matter.  In fact, one political ambassador went though five DCMs during his tenure as George W's ambo in paradise. The whole two Bush terms. We even wrote a tanka about it.  Another political ambassador went through seven permanent and temporary DCMs in less than one presidential term.  Only one served more than six months! That one deserves a super tanka, I know, just haven't got around to writing it.

Anyway, kicking out the embassy's #2 officer may seem easy enough - he/she is not your relative and the USG pays for him/her to be relocated elsewhere but we must point out something kinda important here. See, State Department assignments are usually arranged so that folks have assignments a year before they move or rotate to their new posts. Which means, when the chief of mission unloads a staffer, particularly in the higher ranks, there isn't anyone waiting in the wings to take over at a moment's notice. Except sometimes, the mothership sends in a retired Foreign Service Office to be temp DCM. Which is fine and all, except what happens if you don't like him/her, too? I imagine that's how you could end up as a record holder of sorts or in the top list of folks who should get Bob Sutton's book for Christmas. And that's not something you really want to hang on your wall next to that stuffed moose head, trust me.

So like Eminem sings it ---

....be careful what you wish for
cause you just might get it and if you get it
then you just might not know what to do wit' it ....

Speaking of curtailments -- the junior diplomat at the U.S. Consulate General in Chennai who was in hot water for remarks made at a local school reportedly enrolled herself in a cultural sensitivity course. The State Department Spokesperson says:

"We consider the comments absolutely unacceptable. I think you saw that she apologized almost immediately. She’s also gone to – voluntarily enrolled in a cultural sensitivity course. But obviously, they’re unacceptable and inconsistent with core American values."

A few days later, the Indian press reported that Ms. Chao is leaving her post in Chennai. NDTV reported that "Ms Chao herself decided to leave her posting in Chennai in the near future", citing an unnamed US Consulate spokesperson in Chennai last Friday.

And here I thought the controversy was blowing over....

IBN India also reported the same thing word for word, but cited Anand Krishna, the spokesperson of the US Consulate in Chennai as the source. The report says that the spokesperson was seeking to delink the move from the controversial remarks and indicated that the officer was not coerced into taking the decision.  Queried about Ms. Chao's next assignment, Mr. Krishna reportedly said, “It is her personal choice, we have no idea about that.”

Personal choice is an organizational oxymoron, LOL! At least he did not say she was leaving as a regular part of staffing reassignment, or realignment or repositioning.

There are several ways an FS assignment is curtailed or cut short.

One through voluntary curtailment:  An employee assigned abroad may request curtailment of his or her tour of duty for any reason. The employee submits a written request for curtailment that explains the reasons for the request to the appropriate assignment panel through his or her counseling and assignment officer. Post management must also state its support for or opposition to the employee’s request.  For example, an FSO who can't stand his/her boss can request voluntary curtailment from post.  And then what? Need new shoes to walk up and down the C. Street corridors to find him/her-self a new job. Of course, they'd all want to know why he/she left the old job, bummer!  See why voluntary curtailment is tricky?  Most jobs are filled up a year in advance, too, which would make the curtailed FSO a candidate for the only places with rolling recruitment - Iraq, Afghanistan and ya betcha, Pakistan.

Two, there is involuntary curtailment at the request of the ambassador: If the chief of mission determines that curtailment of an employee’s tour of duty would be in the best interests of the post, the employee, or the employee’s dependents, the chief of mission may ask that the employee’s tour of duty be curtailed.  If I were a spouse with a great fondness for gin (and not just for rum-balls), drinks it like a fish in a tiny pond, then throws up at an official function, that might be grounds for involuntary curtailment, don't you think?

Three, is immediate involuntary curtailment, an exceptional measure in some situations: When the chief of mission deems immediate curtailment of an employee to be in the best interests of the Foreign Service or the posts; when time will not permit the necessary exchange of communications between the post and the Department. This part of the regs must have been written before the advent of the telephone.  In any case, if you were roaring drunk and naked, and found by local police with bondage gear, you most probably would be on the first plane back to D.C. before you could say "oops!"

Finally, according to the FAM, the Director General of the Foreign Service and most senior HR person has the authority to propose curtailment from any assignment sua sponte or on his/her own accord without prompting from anyone. With good reasons, of course since curtailment entails not just additional moving/shipping expense for the government, but also staffing/logistic upheavals at both the losing and gaining post. 

Read more about curtailment in 3 FAM 2440 here.

US Embassy Kabul: Facebook Diplomacy Strategery in Need of Search and Rescue

I don't know if Ambassador Eikenberry included his social media adviser in his HHE when he packed out from the US Embassy in Kabul. See, ever since he left post, the embassy's social media outreach in Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and YouTube has not been the same at all.

The embassy's YouTube channel was never much to begin with. The most recent one posted five days ago was a 1.17 min video of  the U.S. Embassy in Kabul hosting an iftar in honor of Ramazan. But it only has three videos online. So I can't grouse too much about that.

It's Flickr page which used to have quite up-to-date postings has not been updated since August 13. One of the two photos posted on that date is of the "surrounding area at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan on Monday, February 7, 2011." LOL!

The other photo is an aerial view of "Parwan Province, Afghanistan, on Wednesday, June 15, 2011." Those barely visible blue thingies on the ground are called trucks.

It's Twitter page? I'm not sure you really need to clutter your follow option because even when there is breaking news and updates, http://twitter.com/#!/USEmbassyKabul is not/not on it.  See this one below sent to us by one of our tipsters, S in Kabul:

But the changes in US Embassy's Facebook diplomacy strategery is nowhere more apparent than in Facebook, of course.

Much of the previous postings in its Facebook page were mission activities documented in photos posted in Flickr. But since the arrival of Ambassador Crocker, the photostream seems to have significantly dried up.  The embassy's Facebook page is now posting more virtual tours of some of the 50 states of the United States. There also seems to be more happy talk posted about the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

One post about local residents enjoying the nightlife, except the accompanying photo was taken in broad daylight.

In coordination with Uruzgan’s provincial governor and the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Tirin Kot, USAID funded the installation of 20 solar-powered street-lights in Tirin Kot. The lights were installed by Zularistan Ltd., an Afghan company, who also trained two local men selected by the mayor in how to operate and maintain them.
[...]
Local residents, shopkeepers, and security forces have all expressed their delight with the streetlights and say they have made them feel much safer. One community elder, Haji Abdul Raziq, whose home is located near one of the streetlights, said, “We are very happy about these kinds of projects. We used to be afraid at night because of the complete darkness. We hope such projects will be implemented in other parts of our province. Thanks a lot for supporting us.”

Another post about local residents enjoying the night, accompanying photo below also taken in broad daylight. Perhaps, Ambassador Eikenberry also packed out in his HHE the embassy's night photographer?

The remote district of Jani Kheyl in Paktika Province is home to approximately 35,000 people belonging mainly to the Molalzai, Jani Kheyl, and Malzai tribes. The Jani Kheyl bazaar, located in the district center, serves more than 500 people per day and includes four mosques, two schools, and approximately 215 shops. It has no connection to an electric grid.
[...]
Now that the new streetlights have been installed, the mood in the bazaar is much more positive. The new lights help the police patrol the area so that people feel safer and are staying out later at night, all of which has been a boon to business.
[...]
Khan Mohammad, a resident of Jani Kheyl bazaar, added: “Now everyone knows that the lights come on at night and they’re spending more time outside till late in the evening. The street-lights have helped the police a lot in patrolling the bazaar. They make the roads look nice too!”

Two is not a trend, of course, but we'll be watching how many more "Afghans enjoying the night" posts the embassy is able to come up with for our reading/viewing pleasure.

A couple of things that are particularly disturbing -- postings cited above were on the same week when the Brits suffered an attack of its British Council right in Kabul; there was no mention of that in FB. Not even a note of sympathy. I say disturbing because it's like the embassy is in a different universe; things are falling apart except inside the diplomatic compound.

In any case, the happy notes on the embassy's reconstruction efforts are written in English, not in Dari or Pashto.  So I'm also wondering which segment of the online population is the embassy trying to influence with these notes? Certainly not the Afghans!

Then there is this one post on Afghan women topping the judges class:

As a result of war and government instability, judicial training has been sporadic and largely inaccessible to women, with only 26 classes graduating over the 43-year history of the country’s Judicial Stage program. With USAID assistance, in May 2011, 140 students graduated from the Supreme Court’s Judicial Stage program, qualifying them to work as judges in courts throughout Afghanistan. As a whole, the 24 women in this year’s graduating class performed exceptionally well, taking nine of the top ten class positions.

One of its FB fans had the temerity to question the posting:

"So if 8% of the judges are female, where will these graduates of the Stage program go? Are there jobs for them in Afghanistan, or is this a program, that, with all of its good intentions, does not have the capacity to support actual judicial appointments upon graduation?"

 
So far no response from the embassy and it does not look like there is anyone there actually doing the engaging online besides the technical "engage," the Captain Picard kind.. 

I'm not sure how many more Afghans enjoying the night posts I can tolerate before I unfriend the embassy.  Of course, this could all be part of its new strategery of online "engagement" ...

And who knows what happened to the embassy's social media driver. What is clear is that Embassy Kabul needs to mount a search and rescue for its Facebook diplomacy. 

Related articles

• Maybe It's a Different Kabul? (findingmytribe.wordpress.com) (entry now deleted)
• Four Dead In Twin Suicide Bombing In Kabul (cbsnews.com)
• Twin explosions rock British council compound in Kabul (guardian.co.uk)
• Kabul: a city of suicide bombs and terrorist spectaculars (telegraph.co.uk)

Public Affairs Skills Gap: Shortage of Language Qualified Press Officers

Image via WikipediaHere is one more nugget from the OIG review of the Af/Pak "bureau":

The January 27, 2011, arrest in Lahore, Pakistan, of an American official assigned to Embassy Islamabad drew attention to a public affairs skills gap. Not once during nearly 2 months that coincided with this inspection did a Pakistan-based American public affairs official engage the Urdu-speaking media in that local language about this issue. At the 2011 Global Chiefs of Mission Conference, the final report noted that effective engagement requires talented officers and “officers who can engage contacts in local languages with fluency.”3 Likewise, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review stated the intent to, “Make public diplomacy a core diplomatic mission by building regional media hubs staffed by skilled communicators to ensure that we can participate in public debates anywhere and anytime.”4 This is not the case –or at least not regularly – in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. The result is that other voices, including those of extremists, go unchallenged by U.S. officials speaking local languages. Public opinion in Pakistan of Americans and U.S. policy has consistently been at relatively low levels, but that situation was gradually improving [REDACTED[ until the disruption of the Lahore incident. The Lahore incident is an aberration, but it illustrates how quickly – after months of implementing a well-designed strategic communication and public diplomacy strategy –an event can halt, and even temporarily reverse, progress.
[...]
[REDACTED]
[...]
Other direct-hire American staff at the U.S. missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan have a degree of competency in the main local languages (Urdu, Pashto, and Dari), but they may not have the high level of language competency needed to speak extemporaneously in a live television interview or as part of a round table. They may not be Department employees or part of the public affairs section or have press attaché skills. According to FSI, fewer than 120 active career and career-conditional employees can read and speak these hard languages at a competency level of 3 or greater. (See table below.) A native-speaker proficiency in a foreign language is measured at or near the 5 competency level. At the time of this inspection, there were 24 Department officers in Afghanistan and Pakistan serving at that highest level of proficiency in any of the three languages. Dari speakers at the 4 level or higher numbered six, two Pashto speakers; and 14 Urdu speakers. Four Dari speakers, one Pashto speaker, and five Urdu speakers spoke those languages at the highest level.

Recommendation 12: The Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan should develop and implement a plan to recruit detailees or excepted Civil Service employees and place them in Embassy Kabul and Embassy Islamabad press offices to serve as full-time, dedicated public spokespersons; these individuals must be U.S. citizens who are proficient in the local language(s) and have press officer training or experience. (Action: S/SRAP)

Recommendation 13: The Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, should provide career public diplomacy officers with the training they need to communicate proficiently
in the designated local languages, so they can engage with the Afghan and Pakistani local language media at any time and in any place. (Action: S/SRAP, in coordination with DGHR and FSI)

Recommendation 14: The Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, in coordination with the Bureau of International Information Programs, and Embassies Kabul and Islamabad, should examine the feasibility of developing a speakers bureau of experts who are proficient in Urdu, Pashto, or Dari, who can be detailed from their regular jobs to assist with outreach and engagement strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This speakers bureau should include whole-of-government agencies, as well as American citizens who do not work in government and who are fluent speakers of Urdu, Pashto, or Dari to participate in public outreach and other mission-sponsored public diplomacy activities. (Action: S/SRAP, in coordination with IIP, and Embassies Kabul and Islamabad)

I do feel sorry for the six Pashto speakers in the whole State Department; Afghanistan and Pakistan will keep calling them back, never mind the one-year tours; it's called service need.

And the State Department still insists on not/not hiring for skills needed; perhaps thinking it can train itself out of this problem. Ten years from now, unless hiring policy gets smarter, and as more FS personnel reaches the mandatory retirement age of 65 -- we'll be rocking and talking about this same language gap.

FP's Stephen Walt in 2009 citing  DOD media relations officer Brian Lamar, wrote that the Defense Language Institute (DLI) in Monterey, California trains roughly 30 to 40 military personnel in Pashto each year but that most of them are enlisted men in military intelligence.

Even if we presume, for the sake of argument that the State Department trains six Pashto speakers a year, DOD has roughly six times that number every year.  How can we even think of a demilitarized U.S. foreign policy with this kind of numbers? The reality is -- our development and reconstruction folks in Afghanistan not only wear combat boots, they also have their own ATMs, and they speak the local language. So...

Snapshot: Af/Pak Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Strategy, Funding and Staffing

Via the OIG Review of the Af/Pak "Bureau" under the  Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP):

The Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy follows four pillars: expand media engagement, counter extremist voices, build communications capacity, and strengthen people-to-people ties.

To implement that strategy, Embassy Islamabad runs the Department’s largest bilateral exchange program, and Pakistan has the largest Fulbright program in the world. The public diplomacy budget for Pakistan grew from a base public diplomacy budget of approximately $1.5 million in FY 2009 to $58 million in FY 2010 for public diplomacy and strategic communications from Department and USAID funds, not counting strategic communication funds from the Department of Defense. Funds limited to public diplomacy that were spent in Pakistan in FY 2010 totaled $41.4 million (FY 2010 base of $1.6 million; FY 2009 supplemental, 2-year funds of $31.1 million; and FY 2010 supplemental regularization funding of $8.7 million). The FY 2011 budget request is for up to $110 million.

The public diplomacy budget in Afghanistan grew from a base public diplomacy budget of $1.5 million in FY 2009 to over $87.5 million in FY 2010 for public diplomacy and strategic communications from Department and USAID funds, not counting significant strategic communication funds from the Department of Defense. Funds used only for public diplomacy that were spent in Afghanistan in FY 2010 totaled $46.7 million (FY 2010 base $1.3 million; FY 2009 supplemental 2-year money $22.1 million; and FY 2010 supplemental regularization $23.3 million).

These budget increases at Embassies Kabul and Islamabad have been accompanied by a doubling of the number of public affairs officers at the two missions and by SCA/PPD staffing up to support grants management. Neither the S/SRAP unit nor SCA/PPD requires further staff augmentation to manage this increased workload.

Active links added above. Is the informational effect worth all that money?

Countering extremist voices in English is not the same as countering it in the local language or dialect.  Right there, the State Department has a problem not just in the Af/Pak super bureau but in US missions in the large swath of the world where English is not the principal language.

If extreme voices calls you a dog in American English, you should be able to call them back a dog in their language, and explain what kind of dog and why, even debate about it. No translators required, no mistranslation, no misunderstanding just what you mean. But if you can't speak their language ... well, um .... see why that's a problem?

U.S. Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy July 12 Public Meeting: An Invitation

If you're in the DC area and are interested in public diplomacy here is something that you may want to check out:

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00am to 12:00pm on July 12, 2011, at the Capitol Visitor’s Center, room SVC 203-02.

The meeting will include discussions on funding public diplomacy and the Smith-Mundt Act. The Commission welcomes commentary from subject matter experts from several organizations, including the State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Congress, and the public on this and other relevant topics.

This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, members of the Departments of State and Defense, and all other Executive Branch agencies, the media, nongovernmental organizations, and anyone else. This meeting will be on the record.  The Commission is also working on a live webcast of the event.

To attend or request further information, contact the Commission at (202) 203-7463 or pdcommission@state.gov by 3pm on July 11, 2011.

For more information, see the meeting announcement here.

Related articles

• Public Diplomacy Fail: In Which I Visit The Repellent U.S. Embassy In Beijing, Have Words With a State Department Employee and Learn A Possible Way To Short-Circuit The Onerous New Passport Form (nomadlaw.com)
• Steve Clemons: Those on the Front Lines of Diplomacy (huffingtonpost.com)

"R" for Resignation: U/S for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale to Leave Post Next Month

Image via WikipediaJudith McHale, the  Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs also known as "R" in Foggy Bottom is reportedly the latest State Department official to tender her resignation and the third of nine senior officials at State to do so. Ms. McHale was sworn in on May 26, 2009 : 

Via WaPo's Al Kamen, May 23:

Judith McHale, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that she will be leaving her post in June to return to the private sector in New York, sources said.

For the past two years, McHale, former general counsel and then president and chief executive of Discovery Communications, has overseen hundreds of employees in the department’s international information programs, in the educational and cultural affairs bureau, and in the public affairs operation at State, as well as in embassies overseas.

I have not seen the official announcement but I just saw the May 24 statement from the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy on the "Departure of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale":

The Commission would like to express its appreciation to Judith McHale for her public service, her leadership and her contributions over the past two years as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. We recognize and appreciate that she has focused her efforts on raising the profile of her office and on enhancing the capability of the Department of State to effectively engage foreign public audiences across the globe. In light of the extraordinary events ongoing – and to come –around the world, public diplomacy has never been so vital to the national security interests of the United States. We look forward to having an equally productive relationship with Judith's successor as the Commission continues its mission to appraise the efforts of the United States Government to engage foreign publics.

Will there be anyone left by the end of summer?

Related articles

• U.S. Updates the Brand It Promotes in Indonesia (nytimes.com)
• Public Diplomacy Done Right with School Meals (blogcritics.org)
• John Brown: Public Diplomacy as a Linguistic Phenomenon (huffingtonpost.com)

 

 

 

Matt Armstrong Joins the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Matt Armstrong, author and publisher of MountainRunner.us, was recently sworn in as the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission. The immediate impact to this development is the suspension of his blog, including the publishing of guest posts, at MountainRunner.us.

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is a bipartisan panel created by Congress and appointed by the President to appraise U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.

The Commission was reauthorized in June 2007 pursuant to Public Law P.L. 110-21 (2007). It formulates and recommends to the President, the Secretary of State, and Members of Congress policies and programs to carry out the public diplomacy functions vested in the State Department, Broadcasting Board of Governors, and other government agencies. It also appraises the effectiveness of the public diplomacy policies and programs carried out by government agencies.

By law, the Commission's seven members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They are selected from a cross-section of professional backgrounds and serve 3-year terms with the possibility for reappointment. The Commission also includes an Executive Director hired as a civil servant on a two-year appointment.

The Commission reports its findings and recommendations to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of State, and to the American people.

Staff and Contact Information
Matt Armstrong, Executive Director
301 4th Street SW, Room M21
Department of State
Washington, DC
Office:  202-203-7463
Fax:  202-203-7272
Email: pdcommission@state.gov
website at http://state.gov/pdcommission

Congratulations, Matt! We're glad to see you in the Commission.

US Mission Pakistan: Who should get points for botched handling of Raymond Davis case?

I'm sure somebody would send me a nice email after this blog post saying the embassy handled the Raymond Davis case quite well.  After all, wasn't Mr. Davis pardoned, released, and now presumably back in the United States?

Sure, sure... but see now, I'm wondering how much goodwill the United States earned in the aftermath of the Pakistani floods remains after you subtract the Raymond Davis incident? The RD case will certainly have repercussions for years to come in that part of the world where the United States is already viewed as an enemy by a large swath of the population. Just how badly this was handled, let me count the ways.     

On February 15, SFRC Chairman John Kerry in Lahore expressed sorrow for the loss of lives in the Raymond Davis incident. Below is an excerpt.

“I’m here, because in the middle of events that seem to be focusing people narrowly, we need to remember and think about the things that we care about and that we’re both fighting for the bigger, the bigger strategic interests: stability in the region, opportunity for jobs for people, the right for people not to have their lives disrupted or ended suddenly and violently by radical extremists. This is in all of our interest. And these are the bigger issues that we need to be focused on and working hard. And we cannot allow one thing or another that might divide us in a small way to take away from the things that unite us in a big way.”

“So let me say, I know that in recent days emotions have been very stressed by an extraordinarily unfortunate incident involving a diplomat assigned to the United States Embassy. We’re all aware of that. And I want to come here today to express our deepest regret for this tragic event and to express the sorrow of the American people for the loss of life that has taken place. Personally, I’ve been through these kinds of losses. And I know the pain that the families of lost loved ones feel. I understand that…It is important, I think, and I express this on a very personal level, to understand the degree to which we really do feel the sorrow of what has happened and we express our sympathies to those families.”

“I’ve come here to listen. I haven’t come here to order anybody to do anything; I haven’t come here to dictate. I’ve come here to listen carefully, to meet with your leaders and have an opportunity to find a path forward so that we can all live by the law and hopefully find a way to deal with some really urgent pressing issues for both of our countries.”

Full text of Mr. Kerry's statement is here. I thought that was a just the right tenor with enough heart and empathy.

Photo from US ConGen Lahore

Why it took three weeks for somebody to say this out loud, I don't know.

Two days before the Lahore incident, Ambassador Cameron Munter and his wife, Dr. Marilyn Wyatt had a conversation with university students broadcast by PTV.  The American-style "town hall" titled "We Really Believe in You" was part of a series of efforts by the US Ambassador and his wife who now works for USAID to "meet Pakistanis from different walks of life and discuss their concerns and aspirations."

{Note to PAS Islamabad: whoever thought of that title ... that is a fantastically bad, cringy event title. Can't you hear how kon-duh-sen-ding that sounds? And please stop making the first couple at the mission do duet in videos. That is so Sonny and Cher!}

Anyway,, now that I got that off my chest -- the day after the Lahore incident, the embassy issued this very brief statement (01/28/2011):

January 28, 2011
Islamabad - A staff member of the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore was involved in an incident yesterday that regrettably resulted in the loss of life. The U.S. Embassy is working with Pakistani authorities to determine the facts and work toward a resolution.

 

On January 29, 2011, the U.S. Embassy Calls for Release of American Diplomat. In the same statement it says, "we regret that this incident resulted in loss of life."

It was an official statement, but there was no face to go with the regrets. Somehow the people-to-people diplomacy failed right there.

Then we had the State Department spokesman saying from the podium that Raymond Davis is not the correct name.  Pakistani press had previously identified the person arrested as Raymond Davis and Mr. Crowley said, "The name that’s out there is wrong."  That's the agency spokesman, folks; can't get more official than that. 

Which confuses the heck out of everyone. And led some local Pakistani papers to accuse Mr.Davis of using a fake identity, which in turn added fire to the blaze already burning hot in the streets of Pakistan. 

Heck, I even believed PJ, until I didn't.

Later, an embassy spokesman reportedly walked back Mr. Crowley's comments. That was super bad, okay?

On February 11, the US Consul General in Lahore, Carmela Conroy said, "This incident was a tragedy, and we feel tremendous sorrow over the loss of life. We extend our deep sympathy to all the family members who have been affected."

So almost two weeks after the incident, we finally had a face to go with the sorrow.

Then, of course, on February 15, we had Senator Kerry.

Two days after that the US Embassy in Pakistan issued a statement by U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter largely borrowed from Senator Kerry:

Islamabad - Reacting to today's hearings in Lahore, U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter said the United States is disappointed that the Government of Pakistan did not certify that Raymond Davis has diplomatic immunity. He added that the U.S. has made its position on this case clear.

 "Senator Kerry's visit to Pakistan manifested our intention to work with the Government of Pakistan to resolve this issue." Ambassador Munter said. "As the Senator said during his visit, we want to work together as two countries that have a common interest in the same goal and find a path forward."

Echoing Senator Kerry, the Ambassador added, "I would also like to convey to the people of Pakistan our deepest sorrow for the loss of life that occurred in the tragic incident in Lahore.   We all feel the pain and the anguish of families who have lost loved ones."

So, exactly three weeks after the incident, we had that odd, mostly borrowed statement. Like no one at PAS Islamabad had the time to write something a bit more original under the ambassador's name? Anyway, an official statement nonetheless. But. Three. Weeks.     

Which left us wondering -- how is it that the chief of mission and personal representative of President Obama in Pakistan was not the main public face expressing regret over this tragic incident?

Would an earlier expression of sorrow have helped this case? Perhaps not. But it's impossible to know that now.  Still, if you have watched the events unfolding in Pakistan, you would also see that the perceived bitter taste on how this incident played out will not be forgotten anytime soon.

Al Jazeera had an excellent rundown on the Raymond Davis case in Spy game: The CIA, Pakistan and 'blood money' . It may be that this was self defense, it may be that those killed were small pawns in a spy game gone sour. We'll never know now. But three people were dead, and soon there were four. And there was one man in jail. I doubt very much that Mr. Davis would have gotten a fair trial in Pakistan, there were dozens ubber ready to testify against him. There were more who wanted to just put a rope around his head and call it quits.        

Still -- I think that by not responding quickly and addressing the obvious human loss in understandable emotional terms, we allowed the anti-American forces in Pakistan to hijack the Davis case.  It made what was already a murky case, a public theater in wide angle with apportioned losses all around.  It gave those who hate America in Pakistan one more excuse to point at us and and claim arrogance of extreme proportion.  It was not a difficult sell in a country that already viewed America in unfriendly terms.

And by  they way, whoever feed that item about Raymond Davis as an incorrect name to the State Department spokesman, should be made to write a thousand times on the white board "I will not feed false information to the person who stands at the podium."  Because we all know that a few more things like that and the official spokesman's credibility would be a freakin' gaping hole in the dark.

And if that's not enough --  local news surmised that the US Embassy knew as early as March 10 that Davis would be released, as this was the date of Ambassador Munter's statement that was sent to the media when Davis was released on March 16.  The embassy spokesman later clarified that this was 'inadvertently' included in the statement.

Tzao gao! Mistakes were made!

In any case, I have to wonder out loud --  whatever happened to the embassy's huge public affairs "team?"  Islamabad is totally brimming with about a dozen public affairs professionals.  The constituent posts of Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar each has its own PA team.  Altogether, I am told a total of 23 public affairs personnel for US Mission Pakistan.  But the response to the Davis affair feels like a ...like a lumbering, smelly Bigfoot; far from smart, and far from agile engagement. Rapid response this was not, in the response that really mattered.  In fact, this was painfully slow, awkward and evasive. And it looks so tightly controlled you could see -- hey your purple slip is showing!

I call them teams but teamwork, of course, is more often, aspirational than reality in a place where strong individualism and competition can be called institutional DNAs.  Constituent posts do tend to lose their seats at the table, especially in high profile cases like this.  Was that what happened here?  Zzzzend me an email if you know the answer.      

And if this were the military, somebody would have already distributed a lessons learned memo or an After Action Report on the handling of the Raymond Davis affair.  But since this is State ... one gotta ask... anybody out there thinking about lessons learned or an FSI course? What? Speak up, I can't hear you. 

Finally, the old cynic that I am have to point out that April is just around the corner.  Regardless of how this played out, somebody lucky (could be somebodies) will have the RD affair etched in his/her/their EER/s! Ya'betcha!

Related articles

• U.S. thanks Pakistan after contractor pardoned (reuters.com)
• CIA spy escapes murder case in Pakistan after US pays 'blood money' (guardian.co.uk)
• Official: U.S. government to pick up payment to Pakistani families (cnn.com)
• 'Blood Money' Deal Frees CIA Contractor From Pakistan (abcnews.go.com)