Quickie: Ding Dongs and Danger Pay in Kosovo

Via Gadling.com, another piece from David Seminara, former FSO, now photojournalist based in N. Virginia who contributes to The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, ESPN, and other publications and sites.

Once the war in Iraq broke out, I would sometimes feel a tinge of guilt over the fact that we could collect the same level of danger pay in Kosovo that our intrepid colleagues in Iraq were getting. But in the Foreign Service, compensation is often based more on the ability of an embassy's management officers, who compile the reports that result in adjustments to things like hardship, danger and cost of living allowances.

For example, when I arrived in Skopje, we were receiving hardship pay of 15% above our salaries and no one complained about this until we discovered that Sofia, our neighbor to the East, had just been bumped up to 20%.

"Sofia?" we cried. "They have Dunkin Donuts for Christ's sake!"

If our Munchkin' eating colleagues in Sofia were getting 20, we thought we deserved 25. An informal task force was developed to try to document why we too deserved more money. The key was to make the place sound as dreadful as possible, and as the resident amateur photographer, I was asked to do my part by taking photos of stray dogs, litter and peeling Communist apartment blocks. The uglier, the better. A good management officer can make Paris sound like Mogadishu and thanks to the efforts of our task force, we were soon bumped up to 20%.

The flip side is that some dysfunctional posts had no clue how to document hardship- real or imagined. After Skopje, I was posted to Port of Spain, which, by my account, was much more of a hardship than Skopje, but was classified as a 5% post, largely because we had Roy Austin, a political appointee and friend of George W. Bush as ambassador. Mr. Austin believed that everything was just fine in Trinidad, much to our chagrin.

Read in full here.

You remember Port of Spain, right? We even wrote a tanka about it.  Why?  Well, because it's an exceptionally good study on why the appointments of political ambassadors should be handled with extra care. (Read That Did Not Work Out Very Well, Did It? US Embassy Port of Spain Sets Record/s)

Port of Spain, by the way, is stuck at 5% as a hardship differential post.  It is  pure coincidence, of course, that no management officer in Port of Spain has fully completed a tour in 19 years and that our Bush ambassador there during Mr. Seminara's time was replaced by an Obama political ambassador in 2010.

Related articles

• Blogger Dave Seminara (gadling.com)
• A Traveler in the Foreign Service: Ding Dongs and danger pay in Kosovo (gadling.com)

Have something to say on FS family member employment? Deadline Jan. 31

Image via WikipediaVia AFSA:

The April issue of the Foreign Service Journal will examine how Foreign Service spouses, partners and family members go about finding meaningful employment overseas, both inside diplomatic missions and elsewhere.  We want to hear from AFSA members on the extent to which the State Department, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies facilitate those efforts, and are especially interested in your success stories. Please tell us how you got that great job and offer tips for other FS family members in the job market.

Journalist Shawn Zeller (szeller@cq.com), who has done similar investigative reporting for us in the past, will be writing the lead article, an overview of the subject.  Toward that end, he would like to hear from FS personnel and family members who wish to comment on these issues.  (While we strongly prefer that responses be on the record, due to the potential sensitivity of the topic Shawn is willing to use material on background.) Alternatively, members are welcome to submit short (1,000-1,500 words) standalone articles on aspects of this general topic for publication in the April focus.  To the extent possible, the emphasis should be on sharing best practices and creative solutions to these challenges.

Kindly send submissions to FSJ Editor Steve Honley at honley@afsa.org, giving your e-mail a subject line such as "For April 2012 FSJ" or "RE: FS Family Member Employment," and include contact information.

IMPORTANT: All contributors will be identified by name unless they specify they are writing on background (i.e., not for attribution). Tues., Jan. 31, is the deadline for all input, including  comments for Shawn Zeller's use, due to our lead time for Editorial Board review, editing and production.  However, we would appreciate receiving contributions as soon as possible.  All materials are subject to editing for content, style, length and format.  Also, please note that we cannot promise to use all items, though we will make every effort. Questions?  Contact Steve at honley@afsa.org or (202) 944-5511.  Thanks in advance for your assistance!

An FSO's 'Valedictory Dispatch' -- Realities of the Foreign Service

The UK Foreign Office used to have a diplomatic tradition called, "valedictory dispatches," the final letters sent home before ambassadors wrap up their duties and move on.  That tradition now dead, of course, killed by electronic mail. We wondered once if it might be replaced by 140 characters in the foreseeable future soon.

Although the final dispatch is not a tradition practiced in the U.S. Foreign Service even by ambassadors, this past year we have seen a First Person account from a border post and a goodbye from an EFM and FSO in a public blog.  Another resigned FSO, Dave Seminara is now writing A Traveler in the Foreign Service series for Gadling.com.  But MG Edward's instructive post below reminds us more of a valedictory; a crisp final note from the trenches about real life in the Foreign Service.

Michael Gene (M. G.) Edwards served as a diplomat from 2004 until resigning from the U.S. Department of State in 2011. His overseas assignments included working as a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea; as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Asunción, Paraguay, where he focused on political-military affairs and human rights; and as a political-economic officer at the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia focusing on democracy, governance, and human rights. He writes books and stories in the mystery, thriller and science fiction-fantasy genres as well as travel adventures. Visit his website here.  Below is an excerpt from his blog, I am no longer a Foreign Service Officer (used with the author's permission).

Most of what you read online about the Foreign Service is rosy and, in my opinion, defends it to a fault. Perpetual sunshine about the Foreign Service does not tell the full story and does a disservice to those who are interested in becoming Foreign Service officers and need a more realistic picture of what to expect.

If you are interested in a career as a Foreign Service officer, you should seriously consider these points before embarking on the lengthy and competitive application process. I do not want to dissuade you from pursuing your dream, but you should be aware of some realities of Foreign Service life that are not well publicized. These views are my own but have been reinforced by years of firsthand observations and conversations with peers. Many of my colleagues shared these sentiments.

1. Worldwide Availability. You are expected to be available for service worldwide, and your personal preferences may not be taken into account. You may be called to go somewhere you don’t want to go that could put your life at risk. The needs of the service supersede yours. Expect to serve in places you may not want to be.

2. Separation. Be prepared at some point in your career to be separated from your family and serve unaccompanied. If your spouse or partner also works for the Department, expect to do separate tours at least once in your career, possibly more. As of last year, over ten percent of all posts were unaccompanied. If keeping the family together is your raison d’être, you may be disappointed.

3. U.S. Interests. Expect to promote U.S. foreign policy. There is little room for altruism and idealism if it does not coincide with U.S. interests. These interests depend on the administration in office, and whatever you advocated may change at any time. You do not serve your country. You serve the Federal Government and hope that it is doing what’s best for your country.

4. Frequent Moves. Be prepared to move frequently. In some cases, this may mean a short tour of one year or less in a conflict zone, a short-term assignment, an evacuation, or a reassignment to another post. You will move from place to place every two-to-three years, or sooner, unless you can find a different assignment at the same post. While moving from country to country may seem exciting to some, relocation ranks as one of the biggest headaches for Foreign Service families.

5. Bureaucracy. Get used to working in a bureaucracy. You work for the Federal Government. It may be “cool” being a diplomat, but you are still a member of the bureaucracy. Expect decisions and paperwork to move slowly through the system, if at all. Often they will be “overcome by events,” a fancy term that means you did a lot of work for nothing. You will do an immense amount of paper pushing in the office until you’re senior enough to have support staff to do it for you.

6. Unfair Rules. “Fair” is a four-letter word. Do not expect justice or fairness. The rules are written to be equalizers and may make no sense. Expect “no” as an answer to even the most logical requests and massage the rules until you get to “yes.” You are subject to the Foreign Affairs Manual and federal regulations. In a rule-based organization, those who know the rules and how to work the system tend to do better. Those who expect fairness, justice, or hold firm in their resolve often go wanting. The Foreign Service has few options for those who want to pursue a complaint because the rules were written with the Department’s interests in mind.

7. Multiple Clearances. Do nothing until you have cleared with everyone who needs to approve whatever you’re doing or face potential consequences. Your superiors are ultimately responsible for your actions under mission authority and can take disciplinary action if you misstep. If you’re a free spirit or like to do things your own way, think twice. Measure as many times as it takes to get full clearance and then cut.

8. No Privacy. Do not expect to have any privacy. Your life is on public display, and you are expected to lead yourself in public responsibly. Do nothing privately you would not want to see end up in the pages of the Washington Post. Everyone wants to know what you’re doing. Everyone, inside and out.

9. Unhealthy Work Environment. Expect to work with a variety of personalities from many cultures. Given its high-pressure working environment, the Foreign Service has elevated levels of stress that can negatively influence behavior. While many employees are excellent colleagues, the Department has its fair share of bad bosses and nasty coworkers. The Department’s hierarchical clearance and promotion systems are designed to give leverage to those in positions of authority. They can make your life miserable if you’re not compliant or simply rub them the wrong way. Try to get along, even if it goes against every fiber in your being, because with perseverance you too will rise to a position of authority and eventually exert your own leverage.

Read in full here.

Related articles

• A Traveler in the Foreign Service: My rock star elevator in Skopje (gadling.com)
• A Traveler in the Foreign Service: The list, the call, the flag- assignments in the Foreign Service (gadling.com)
• A Traveler in the Foreign Service: Can a guy who didn't get high get a security clearance? (gadling.com)
• A Traveler in the Foreign Service: Escape from a rock-star elevator in Skopje (gadling.com)

Wild, Wild Web Chat on 21st Century Statecraft - Disinfectant, Control Freaks and Please, No Shots in the Heads

You must know by now that the month of January has been designated as 21st Century Statecraft month at the State Department.  Of course, what is 21st Century Statecraft without the Secretary of State’s most Senior Advisor for Innovation?  On January 10, Alec Ross had a web chat with journalists and bloggers from around the world to discuss 21st Century Statecraft.  Below are some quips that made us take out our highlighter:

On the question, "How do you work with your diplomats who might not be social media savvy?", this is what Mr. Ross had to say:

MR. ROSS: Yeah. So social media intimidates a lot of people that just aren’t used to it. I’m 40 years old, which makes me 12, 15 years older than digital natives, than people who grew up with the internet. I didn’t send or receive a single email when I was at university. I didn’t own my first mobile phone until I was in my late 20s. So I’ve had to learn this just like everybody else has.

What I tell our diplomats is that you don’t have to be a social media expert, but if you are working at our embassies, and certainly if you’re an Ambassador and leading one of our embassies, you don’t have to do it yourself, but you better find somebody in your embassy or on your team who does understand it. And then part of what we’re trying to do as a practical matter is train our diplomats – everybody from the 22 year-olds who are new diplomats, who, to be honest with you, don’t need the training because I’ve yet to meet a 22 year old, at least in the United States, who doesn’t understand social media – to train everybody from our most junior diplomats to our ambassadors.

So I personally train everybody who is a rising Ambassador. We have this thing at the State Department called the Foreign Service Institute. And you literally take classes to be an Ambassador. You go through what’s called an Ambassadorial seminar. And when you are in your Ambassadorial seminar, you get a class from Alec Ross about how to use social media. And what I tell them is you don’t have to use it, but if you don’t, you need to empower somebody at your embassy who does.

And it’s not about talking. This isn’t about pushing out a message. What I tell our ambassadors is remember you only have one mouth, but two ears. So even if you aren’t using these tools to communicate out to people, at a bare minimum, you need to use them to listen to people, because this is how people are talking to you in the 21st century.

Want more? Okay, more from Mr. Ross:

"I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and as our information networks become more universal and more powerful, there’s more of this sunlight to bring to light what’s happening all around the world."

"The difference in the United States versus other places is that we do this without sacrificing universal rights. So people have freedom of expression. They have the ability to exercise peaceful, political dissent. They have the ability to communicate however they see fit"

"[W]hat social media tends to do, is it redistributes power. It redistributes power from hierarchies to citizens, from large institutions and the nation-state to individuals and networks of individuals."

"The 21st century is a lousy time to be a control freak."

"We can try to control the space, but I’m very skeptical about the degree to which we can or should control the internet. I think that it’s a losing proposition. The far better thing to do is to understand that everybody’s going to have a voice, that good points of view and bad points of view are going to be conveyed there, and what we need to do is be aggressive in getting out there and pushing out the truth."

"What I will say, though, is if hundreds of people at – let’s say hundreds of people at the State Department – if hundreds of people are using social media and one person goes a little bit off message, I don’t think that person should be shot in the head. I think that they should be corrected. But part of the – part of getting people involved in using social media means that you’re giving up a little bit of control."

"The traditional way in which the State Department got its message out was standing behind a podium and our spokesperson communicating the policy of the United States Department of State. We still do that and it’s the right thing to do. But part of what Hillary Clinton has empowered our diplomats to do is to have literally hundreds of other people out there communicating and having conversations, and I think that this is a good thing. Of course we all have to operate and communicate within the parameters of U.S. policy, but one of the things that we know is because of the hyper-transparency that comes with all of this social media, if anybody steps out of it for a minute, we hear about it."

"I think that now that we’ve been doing this for three years, I think that what we can see is that, by and large, our diplomats get this right. By and large, they understand our policies. By and large, they represent us well on social media. So I think we should be doing more of this rather than less."

"At the United States Department of State, we, like the rest of the world, are learning and adapting to a world that’s becoming increasingly disrupted by social media. This disruption can be good, it can be bad, but we live in a world of constant change. And what we’re seeking to do, even though we are historically a pretty conservative organization, part of what our boss, Hillary Clinton, has said is that we’ve got to keep pace, we’ve got to listen, we’ve got to learn, we’ve got to experiment. And so even things like this session today, this LiveAtState session today, I think is very important and very positive. Part of what we want to do is take diplomats like myself sitting here in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, D.C. and bring them to countries around the world where you might otherwise not be able to speak with us and ask questions of us."

Oh, Alec, this is wild, just wild! 

Prior to Foggy Bottom, Mr. Ross worked on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team and served as Convener for Obama for America's Technology, Media & Telecommunications Policy Committee.  He is not a career official.  He says that he personally trains rising ambassadors and the chiefs of mission seminar.  Which makes one wonder how far this flavor stick when the Obama Reelection Campaign comes calling.  Video here in case you need to show this to your boss who just slapped your hands with an imaginary bamboo stick for blogging, tweeting and touching those shiny but pesky 21st century statecraft tools.     

When the harassment and discouragement of State Department bloggers first manifested we had a chance to point out the problems to Mr. Ross. On January 2010 he told this blog, "If I'm given specific names of people doing the "discouraging" then I will take it up with those individuals (or their bosses or their boss' boss) directly."

Which is good to hear at first blush but not the best response or solution to this problem. See, Mr. Ross, whatever his actual employee category is not a career employee of the State Department. He may leave when Secretary Clinton term is up, or may sign up for another term if there is an Obama II. Or he could get recycled out if there is a new tenant in the WH.

So, let's pretend for a moment that I am a State employee with a blog that is getting some flack from my boss in say, the CA bureau. I give Mr. Ross my boss' name.  Mr. Ross may take up my issue with the top honcho of Consular Affairs. If that does not work, he may take it up with the boss of the CA boss, which would be, yes, the Under Secretary for Management, pretty high up the chain.  I imagine that those bosses, whether they agree or not would listen to Secretary Clinton's Senior Advisor for Innovation; that's a given.  So I'll happily blog along, problem solved. Until, of course, Mr. Ross moves on to his next adventure and exits Foggy Bottom.  I, presumably would still continue working for the bureaucracy.  My boss, and his/her boss' boss would  still continue working for the bureaucracy.  And they would remember me as the blogger somebody who rat on them to the 7th floor using the super fast elevator.  Under this scenario, Mr. Ross' solution to "take it up" directly with the bosses is like the career equivalent of taking rat poison.   


     

Related articles

• U.S. State Department Celebrates Social Media (mashable.com)
• State Dept. Official: Governments Can't Fight Social Media (pcworld.com)
• U.S. State Department to interact with public on Twitter (thehindu.com)
• U.S State Department to Take Press Briefing Questions via Twitter (techland.time.com)

 

 

 

 

2011: An FS Roundup of Protests, Disasters, Evacuations and More

De Sousa v. Dept of State, et al. - Diplomatic Immunity Whiplash

The case filed by former FSO, Sabrina De Sousa against the State Department was dismissed by United States District Judge, Beryl A. Howell on January 5, 2012. From Judge Howell's opinion:

"The facts underlying this case are troubling in many ways. The plaintiff served the government and the people of the United States in the Foreign Service for a decade. During the course of her service to this country, she was accused and convicted in absentia of committing a crime in a foreign nation, not for any personal gain, but at the alleged behest of the United States government. According to her allegations, she requested the government’s assistance to counter the charges against her in Italy, but received none and was instead “[e]ffectively abandoned and left to fend for herself.” Am. Compl. at 2. Following her foreign conviction, she faces the risk of arrest and imprisonment if she travels outside the United States, which is a particular hardship in her case both because of the impact on her professional options and because she is a naturalized citizen with family members living abroad. Then, when the plaintiff sought judicial review in this Court, the government did little to minimize the “logistical obstacles” presented by the need to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of classified information, but rather denied her counsel the use of a secure computer to draft filings and “threatened” the continuation of her counsel’s security clearance. ECF No. 63 at 13 n.6. The message that this scenario sends to civilian government employees serving this country on tours of duty abroad is a potentially demoralizing one."

On diplomatic immunity, the Court notes that "the government is alleged to have undertaken an action – the non-assertion of immunity on behalf of De Sousa in a foreign judicial proceeding – that is within its discretion."

Also this:

"The plaintiff’s entitlement (or not) to diplomatic or consular immunity in the Italian proceeding is a non-justiciable foreign policy question. El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 844 (“[C]ourts cannot reconsider the wisdom of discretionary foreign policy decisions.”). The relevant international treaties on diplomatic and consular immunity make clear that the immunities set forth in those treaties are to benefit states and not individuals. See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, pmbl., Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U.S.T. 77, T.I.A.S. No. 6820 (hereinafter, “VCCR”) (“[T]he purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States.”);

Here are some facts about this case, extracted from the court filing:

• Sabrina De Sousa is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in India who served as a Foreign Service Officer for the U.S. State Department from 1998 to 2009. 
  
• In August 1998, she was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy as a Political Officer, Second Secretary.
  

• In May 2001, she was transferred to the U.S. Consulate in Milan as a Vice Consular Officer for a tour of duty scheduled to end in May 2004.

• Her employer provided her with a United States government diplomatic passport that explicitly stated that she was abroad on a diplomatic assignment.

• On February 17, 2003, the plaintiff was vacationing at a ski resort in Madonna di Campiglio, Italy, approximately 130 miles from Milan, Italy.

• According to news reports, on that same day, U.S. and Italian intelligence agents kidnapped Abu Omar in Milan and, in an act of “extraordinary rendition,” transported him to Egypt, where he was interrogated and tortured.

• In January 2004, the plaintiff’s tour of duty in Italy ended and she returned to the United States, where she continued to work for the State Department.

• In July 2006, the prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for De Sousa, whom he identified as one of the four U.S. officials mainly responsible for the alleged kidnapping. The warrant against De Sousa is a EUROPOL warrant, meaning that if she attempts to enter any country in the European Union, she faces immediate arrest and transfer to Italian authorities. Countries outside the European Union could also choose to arrest and extradite her to Italy. Arrest warrants were also issued for several other alleged U.S. and Italian agents.

• Around the time that her arrest warrant was issued, the plaintiff wrote to then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice requesting that the U.S. government invoke diplomatic or consular immunity with respect to her alleged involvement in the kidnapping of Abu Omar and provide her with legal representation to counter the charges in the Italian criminal case. She did not receive any response.

• The plaintiff’s employer instructed the plaintiff not to communicate with her Italian government appointed defense lawyer or with the media.

• In October 2008, the plaintiff requested approval from her employer to take a vacation to visit family members in India, but the request was denied because of concern that theoutstanding EUROPOL warrant for De Sousa might lead to her arrest and extradition to Italy.

• In early 2009, the plaintiff again wrote to the Secretary of State – by then Hillary Clinton– requesting official government assistance with the Italian case, but she again did not receive a response.

• On February 13, 2009, the plaintiff resigned from her employment with the U.S. government.

• In August 2009, approximately three months after the plaintiff’s filing of this action in May 2009, the U.S. government agreed to provide the plaintiff with defense counsel in Italy.

The last time diplomatic immunity was big news was when Raymond Davis was arrested in Pakistan and the USG contended that he was protected by diplomatic immunity because of his employment with the U.S. Consulate in Lahore.  He was later reported to be a private security contractor for one of the agencies that must not be named.

This case involves a Foreign Service Officer who held a diplomatic passport at the time of the alleged crime. And from the looks of it, the State Department and the U.S. Government gave her the finger instead of lifting one to help her.  Granted that the allegation of “extraordinary rendition" has such a nasty ring to it .... the government's handling of this case is more than "potentially demoralizing."  How would you like to be in her shoes?  The next time the State Department talks about leadership and "taking care of the troops," somebody please ask nicely about this one.



Sabrina De Sousa v Department of State, et al.

Related articles

• D.C. Judge Rules For DOJ In Immunity, Classified Info Dispute (legaltimes.typepad.com)
• Judge dismisses former State Department official's lawsuit in Italian kidnapping case (washingtonpost.com)

No mother-in-law evictions for consular officials

The Canadian Minister of State of Foreign Affairs recently issued a reminder to Canadians traveling overseas on the importance of careful planning for safe travel and what consular officials can and cannot do:

“During this holiday season, the many Canadians travelling abroad are reminded to be proactive in reducing the risks and increasing the chances of having a safe and enjoyable trip. Consular services are available in more than 150 countries around the world, it is important for Canadians to know which services we do and do not provide.

“Consular Officials CAN:

    Provide advice and information for medical services.
    Contact relatives or friends when you need serious help.
    Provide sources of information for local laws and customs.
    Replace lost or stolen passports.

“Consular Officials CANNOT:

    Ask your mother-in-law to leave your house.
    Purchase tickets for a musical or entertainment event.
    Settle disputes between you and your partner.
    Pick up your dog at the airport.

Tales from the consular front lines

A family called about their son, who had been arrested for trafficking drugs in Germany. They wanted to know if the Government of Canada was planning to send a helicopter into the prison yard to rescue him. They were very surprised to learn this wasn’t a service provided.

An U.S. citizen called wanting to know how she could get a Canadian passport. When told she could not get one, because she was not a Canadian citizen, she said that she thought an American going to Canada needed a Canadian passport.

A Canadian citizen visiting Chicago wanted to know if consular officers could get tickets for The Oprah Winfrey Show. Another Canadian, flying into London, wanted to see a play that was ending that night and asked consular officers to line up that morning for cheap, same-day tickets.

A Canadian asked the Embassy in Beijing if someone could come and pick up his dog at the Beijing airport after the dog was refused boarding due to lack of proper paperwork. He wanted consular officers to pick up the dog and take care of it until he could get things sorted out—and he did not want to miss his flight and lose the ticket.

A Canadian citizen living abroad had an argument with his girlfriend, after which she kicked him out. He wanted consular officials to talk to the girlfriend and negotiate his return home.

A Canadian living in Cairo asked consular officials to escort her mother-in-law out of the Canadian woman’s apartment.

An excellent reminder, not at all different from what American consular officials can and cannot do for Americans overseas. The helicopter rescue must be  a fairly common expectation. Below is the State Department's response on why it does not use the U.S. military, including helo rescues in every evacuation:

"We use the resources that are most expedient and appropriate to the situation. Expectations of rescue by helicopters, the U.S. military, and U.S. government-provided transportation with armed escorts reflect a Hollywood script more than reality. While some evacuations involve U.S. military or other U.S. government assets, most rely on commercial transportation and local infrastructure. Any level of departure assistance constitutes an enormous logistical effort."

Related articles

• Canadian consular staff won't help boot your mother-in-law (news.nationalpost.com)
• Mother-in-law removal, dog pickup among bizarre requests to Foreign Affairs (vancouversun.com)
• Mother-in-law removal, dog pickup among bizarre requests to Foreign Affairs (canada.com)
• Foreign Affairs gets odd requests from abroad (cbc.ca)

Storify: Ambassador Bryza's Rocky Road to Baku and Back

US Embassy Syria to Get $21,800 of Meals Ready to Eat

This solicitation for MREs or meals, ready to eat recently appeared in fedbiz:

The Department of State requires the following items, Brand Name or Equal, to the following:

LI 001, MRE-SURE-PAK(12-MEALS PER/CS):ENTRE,SIDE DISH,DESSERTS,CRACKER PACK,SPREADS,BEVERAGES, AND COFFEE WITH CONDIMENTS. VARIOUS TYPES OF ASSORTED TYPES.(PALLETIZED), 336, EA;

LI 002, OPTIONAL SHIPPING REQUIREMENT TO SYRIA INT'L AIRPORT.(BASED ON CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND RESTRICTIONS IN SYRIA)IF TRANSPORTATION IS NOT POSSIBLE BY VENDOR; STATE WILL USE DEPATCH AGENCY FOR TRANSPORTION), 1, EA;

The contract was awarded to Noble Sales Co., Inc. of Hanover, MA on November 21, 2011 in the amount of $21,803.04.

Photo by Christopherlin

According to Meyers Custom Supply, its SURE-PAK MRE is their top-of-the-line meal:

SOPAKCO SURE-PAK 12TM  meal case was designed to meet the needs of the end user who requires a top-of-line, fully-configured MRE meal case.  With 12 mains, 12 sides, 12 desserts, 12 crackers, 12 spreads, 12 beverages, 12 coffees -  It's the best MRE meal case we've ever made for the general public

Related articles

• Gulfsands hit by EU sanctions on Syria (telegraph.co.uk)
• Syria crackdown toll now near 5000: UN (news.smh.com.au)
• SEC asks companies to detail ties to Iran, Syria (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Syria violence continues, death toll crosses 5000: UN - Indian Express (indianexpress.com)

 

 

 

Insider Quote: On Protecting Our Folks in Iraq

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, in a Wall Street Journal interview (In Iraq, U.S. Shifts to a Large, New Footprint):

"If we move out into the Iraqi economy, out into the Iraqi society in any significant way, it will be much harder to protect our people."

 

 

 

US Embassy Kinshasa Restricts Personnel and Family Members to Residences Until Further Notice

Ambassador Entwistle served
as an international election
observer in Kinshasa.
Photo from US Embassy Kinshasa/FB

The US Embassy in Kinshasa released an emergency message for U.S. citizens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, announcing the embassy personnel restrictions and potential roadblocks in the aftermath of the country's presidential election.

12/6/2011 | The U.S. Embassy has restricted U.S. Embassy personnel and their family members in Kinshasa to their residences effective at 6 p.m. on December 6, 2011, until further notice.

At any time, there is the potential for roadblocks to occur spontaneously throughout the city, manned by police or military personnel.  In these situations, you are strongly advised to obey all commands by armed security personnel.

The U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa will have minimal staffing on December 6-7, 2011, and the Consular Section will be open only for emergency American Citizen Services.
The American School of Kinshasa (TASOK) will be closed from December 5-7, with further updates on Wednesday evening December 7.

A number of international airlines have cancelled flights in and out of Kinshasa on the 6th and 7th of December.

Further updates are planned daily at 6 p.m.  Additional messages may be sent on a more frequent basis as the security situation evolves.  As SMS capabilities have been limited and are likely to remain irregular and unreliable, it is important to frequently check your email messages and review Embassy Kinshasa’s website for the latest Emergency Messages to U.S. Citizens.

On November 28, U.S. Embassy personnel in Lubumbashi and Kananga were instructed to remain in place until further notice.

On December 2, the embassy informed U.S. Citizens in the DRC that U.S Embassy personnel are returning from Lubumbashi to Kinshasa due to general election related security concerns.

On December 4, the embassy issued a message reminding U.S citizens that Embassy personnel and their family members in Kinshasa are not permitted to travel outside the Gombe neighborhood, and are urged to exercise caution and remain vigilant at all times. This restriction includes travel to the N’djili airport.

Kinshasa is a consumable post, which means our embassy folks have edible foodstuffs and personal maintenance items at their residences and will not go hungry while they are restricted to their residences. However, there is no telling how long the restriction would last. 

DRC is also a critical crime post. The 2011 Crime and Security Report on Kinshasa indicates that the overall crime and safety situation in the DRC can best be described as tenuous and volatile.  The report which is put together annually by the embassy's security office also says that "the breakdown of civil order could occur at any moment in Kinshasa and is our most important security concern."

A 2009 report put the number of American citizens who live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (mainly around Kinshasa) at approximately 1500.  A few American tourists visit the country annually and residents primarily include missionaries and business representatives.

Related articles

• Congo's delayed election results raise fears of a return to war (guardian.co.uk)
• Congo-Kinshasa: Kabila Leads in Partial Results From Polls (allafrica.com)
• Fears of violence overshadow DR Congo vote count (france24.com)
• Congolese protest in Ottawa turns violent (vancouversun.com)
• Kinshasa tense as DRC awaits vote results (aljazeera.com)
• Congo's Kabila Set to Extend Rule Amid Fears of Violence (businessweek.com)
• Partial Congo election results put Kabila ahead (ctv.ca)

 

 

 

 

US Embassy Beijing Air Monitoring, Pollution Hype? Oh Yeah, the Smog Fogs the Brain, and Closes Beijing's Airport ...

Last month, environmental authorities in Beijing have accused the US embassy of "hype" after its widely-publicized measurements of air quality in the Chinese capital sparked concern.

"I'm not clear about their way and methods of monitoring or how they ensure the accuracy," said Du Shaozhong, spokesman for the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau, according to the Beijing Times.

"But I feel their way of releasing (the data) is more like hype, and not a very serious attitude toward research."

The last 48 hours, the air quality in Beijing according to the US Embassy's reading has see-sawed between Very Unhealthy to Hazardous, with one Crazy Bad (Beyond Index) reading on Sunday. See  http://twitter.com/#!/BeijingAir. 

Melissa Chan of Al Jazeera illustrated the current air quality in Beijing and Vermont with a photographic comparison on Twitter last month.

Greenpeace East Asia has put together real-time apps, Twitter tracking air quality levels in different Chinese cities to "help you closely monitor the skies (and know to stay indoors on those 'crazy bad' days)." Check them out here.

Today, we saw the amateur video of what Beijing’s streets looked like yesterday morning, December 4 via WSJ's China Real Time Report:



WSJ China Real Time Report notes that authorities in Beijing and most other Chinese cities measure air pollution by counting only particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter. The US embassy counts particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), which experts say make up the most of the city’s air pollution and cause more damage to the lungs.

Continue reading, Victory for U.S. Embassy as Beijing Chokes on 'Heavy Fog'

A few hours ago, BBC reports that Beijing airport has cancelled hundreds of flights after a dense smog reduced visibility in the Chinese capital.

Also this piece from PRNewswire touting that the global residential air treatment systems market as highly dynamic and expected to show steady growth should be helpful:

Verify Markets estimates the global residential air treatment systems market to be over $2 billion in revenues in 2010. China was the largest market, followed by Japan and the United States.  The key drivers in most countries globally are poor indoor quality and rising awareness about poor air quality.  In China, purchasing power, steady increase in income levels and poor indoor quality are major market drivers.

The smog fogs the brain, that is all. Don't believe what you see or hear or breath ... it's all a hype, of course.  But just in case, get ready with your 3M masks!

Related articles

• Authorities cancel flights as haze shrouds Beijing (cnn.com)
• Heavy Beijing smog stops flights (bbc.co.uk)
• Smog Closes Beijing Airport (nytimes.com)
• China Air-Quality Catastrophe - It's Back (theatlantic.com)
• Authorities cancel flights as haze shrouds Beijing (news.blogs.cnn.com)
• U.S. readings challenge China's smog claims (cnn.com)

US Embassy Iraq: Severely Restricts Movement of Employees Within the Green Zone

There was an explosion inside the International Zone (aka: Green Zone, aka: Ultimate Gated Community) last week. The first since 2007. According to the McClatchy Newspapers,  Iraqi officials at first attributed the explosion to a rocket that had landed in a parking lot. Later they admitted that it was a suicide car bomb that detonated at the entrance to the parliament building and killed five people. McClatchy notes that "as the drawdown has continued, violence has risen steadily. More than 100 people have been killed in violence in Baghdad in November; the number for October was 65."

On 1 January 2009, full control of the International (formerly "Green") Zone was handed over to Iraqi security forces.  So-- if entry into the Green Zone, where Iraqi government offices and the U.S. Embassy are located, is strictly controlled, how did the suicide car bomb made it past the gate? Is this a prelude of what is to come in 2012?

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki denies that the explosion signals a deterioration in Green Zone security ahead of US forces' planned pullout. In fact, the PM down playing the attack says, "It was a very simple operation." One apparently meant to kill him.

"The preliminary intelligence information says that the car was due to enter parliament and stay there and not to explode. It was supposed to explode on the day I entered parliament," he told the Associated Press.

Mr. al-Maliki  was also quoted in the Guardian saying that the bomb was probably assembled inside the Green Zone and was not very powerful. He reportedly also blamed al-Qaida in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party for the violence.

Uh-oh! Shouldn't this give you some pause or something?  How many more car bombs out there can be assembled inside the Green Zone?

In the meantime, just days before the last of our troops leave Iraq, and the Iraq headache is officially transferred from DOD to the State Department, the US Embassy in Baghdad released escalating warnings about kidnapping of U.S. citizens throughout Iraq including the International Zone. The most recent warning includes a notice that the movement of its employees within the IZ is restricted.

On November 22: Possible Increased Kidnapping Threat

The U.S. Embassy wishes to apprise all U.S. citizens of the potential for increased kidnapping operations by militant groups throughout Iraq, including in Baghdad.  The U.S. Embassy recommends that U.S. citizens in all areas of Iraq maintain a heightened sense of security awareness and take appropriate measures to enhance personal and operational security at this time.

On November 28: Significant Threat of Kidnapping of U.S. Citizens

The U.S. Embassy wishes to notify all U.S. citizens of the existence of severe  threats of kidnapping operations and attacks by terrorists throughout Iraq.  These threats also exist within the International Zone in Baghdad.  The U.S. Embassy recommends that U.S. citizens in all areas of Iraq maintain a heightened sense of security awareness and take appropriate measures to enhance personal and operational security.      

On December 3: Continued Severe Threat of Kidnapping of U.S. Citizens

Due to severe threats of kidnapping operations and terrorist attacks throughout Iraq, including the International Zone (IZ), the U.S. Embassy has greatly enhanced the security posture for U.S. Government employees.  This enhanced security posture includes severely restricted movement within the IZ.  The U.S. Embassy recommends that U.S. citizens in all areas of Iraq, including the IZ, maintain a heightened sense of security awareness and take appropriate measures to enhance personal and operational security at this time.  U.S. citizens are advised to keep a low profile; vary days, times, and routes of travel; and exercise caution while driving and entering or exiting vehicles.

It's December 5, 2011 and that's the way things are. How long can the International Zone remain "green" might be a good question. And if movement within the IZ is severely restricted, how much work can our folks realistically do over there? Also what about State Department folks outside the IZ, which bunker can they hunker while staff movement is severely restricted?

Related articles

• Amid Threats, U.S. Tightens Security in Baghdad (nytimes.com)
• Official: Green Zone Bombing Was Targeting Iraq PM (abcnews.go.com)
• Iraqi PM says he was target of Green Zone blast (ctv.ca)
• Green Zone bomb was assassination attempt: Iraq PM (dailytimes.com.pk)

FS Blogging: An Opportunity, Not a Threat (FSJ Speaking Out)

The December issue of the Foreign Service Journal is out.  FSO, Matt Keene has an excellent piece on Foreign Service blogging -- FS Blogging: An Opportunity, Not a Threat. Mr. Keene, a Foreign Service consular officer since 1999, is currently a special assistant in the Bureau of Human Resources. In addition to overseas assignments in Jerusalem, Dubai and Sofia, he was deputy director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs from 2009 to 2011.

Excerpts below:

[...]
Anyone who has been called on the carpet for blogging — especially those who have been summoned more than once — can tell you that the only consistent aspect of the department’s feedback is inconsistency.

Blogging is encouraged by some elements within the department and is even discussed on the official page, www.careers.state.gov, complete with a substantial set of links to popular Foreign Service-related blogs. Yet even bloggers listed there are sometimes targeted for official harassment by other elements within the department for having a blog in the first place.

One colleague informs me that an A-100 orientation instructor warned his class of new FSOs not to blog — but turned out to be doing so himself. Some individuals have been warned that their careers could be harmed by their or their spouse’s blog — but when they press on this in subsequent meetings, their hair is blown back by the force of the wind generated by the back-pedaling. Others have asked whether it would be better to shut down their blogs entirely, only to be told that they would never be asked to do that. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, after all, is a big supporter of social media.

As usual, the department is about a century behind the times. Its decidedly schizophrenic approach to social media would be comical if it weren’t so serious.
[...]
Official social media outlets serve a purpose — as far as they go. But no one who wants the real skinny on a company goes to its monthly newsletter. Instead, they grab a beer with a few of the employees. Not only is the feedback there more candid, but it covers subjects that are simply inappropriate for official communication.

This is the type of benefit private Foreign Service blogs offer, one that the department itself has done a woefully inadequate job of providing to date: communicating to the American people what it is we actually do and why it matters, thus putting a human face on the diplomatic corps. No wonder Overseas Comparability Pay is so difficult to secure. The average American doesn’t have the first clue of who we are or what we do.

Social media are here to stay, and the generation of officers who have grown up with Twitter, Facebook, Blogger and Wordpress are not going to abandon what they see as a First Amendment right. State should embrace this reality and work robustly and actively to ensure that the Foreign Affairs Manual contains specific, practical guidance to officers on how public speaking and communication regulations apply to private blogs — and spells out what is inappropriate, and why. The current guidance found in the 5 FAM 700 series and its myriad cross-references is neither effectively codified nor well understood.
[...]
Foreign Service bloggers and users of social media should not be left cowering in fear, bewildered as to what might get them into trouble, and made to feel like dissidents. Instead, their creativity should be harnessed, and the adversarial relationship between bloggers and department management should be mended.

Foreign Service blogging isn’t a problem to be managed. It is an opportunity to be seized.

Read in full via AFSA/FSJ, FS Blogging: An Opportunity, Not a Threat (pdf).

Taking Care of the "Troops" -- The State Department Way

Back in March, I posted a first person account of an FSO in Mexico amidst that country's shooting war. (see US Mission Mexico: First Person from a Border Post).

I also did a follow-up post, In a War That Must Not Be Named, Leadership and Security On the Line. 

This is what I wrote then:

I supposed we may think of life in the Service as if it were a scale -- the national strategic and security priorities on one side and on the other side, the acceptable personal risk of the employees.   But not everyone will get to look at that scale. And not everyone will get to make the judgment call.  Employees do not get to vote, diplomatic missions are not democracies.

That might as well apply to the mothership of diplomatic missions.

Thirty-two years ago, our diplomats were taken hostage in Iran. Moorhead C. Kennedy Jr. who served as an economic and commercial officer in the U.S. embassy in Iran during the hostage crisis has written an op-ed over in Politico asking "Whose side is the State Dept. on?"

"I was one of the 66 U.S. citizens taken hostage in Tehran in November 1979. Ten months before, revolutionary militants stormed the U.S. embassy, holding the mission personnel hostage for several hours and generating fear for the safety of the remaining Americans in Iran. After this group of U.S. Foreign Service personnel were recovered and removed, our State Department sent out a request to all its posts worldwide, seeking volunteers to staff the embassy in Tehran. Volunteers were informed that it was safe in Tehran and were encouraged to bring their families, including preschool-age children. In all, 66 Foreign Service officers answered this call to serve.

It was not as safe as the State Department had indicated. By October it had seriously deteriorated, as the Carter administration agreed to allow the shah to enter the U.S. for medical treatment.

As Carter had predicted, in reaction to Washington’s acceptance of the shah, hundreds of thousands of Iranians demonstrated throughout Tehran. Nov 4, a group of Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy, kidnapping 52 Americans. That they did so with the blessings (and under the apparent direction) of Tehran can hardly be challenged, since less than a month later, the government announced its intention to try the hostages as spies and execute them — unless the U.S. paid $24 billion.
[...]
Ultimately, in January 1981, the Carter administration entered into a series of agreements known as the Algiers accords. These provided Iran a $7.8 billion payment and established the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal — through which businesses and financial institutions could file and obtain compensations for property and contract claims against Iran.
[...]
The accords, however, contained a provision that precluded the 52 hostages and their families from bringing suit against Iran for seizure, detention and injuries. They, and only they, were unable to obtain any compensation for the life-changing injuries they suffered while in the service of our country as volunteers answering the call of our government.
[...]
Congress has passed various statutes, allowing US nationals, victimized by terrorism, to obtain compensation for injuries. Literally hundreds have pursued claims in U.S. courts and received compensation for terrorism sponsored by Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea and Libya.

The Tehran embassy hostages also sought to pursue similar claims in U.S. Courts. In August 2001, we obtained a judgment against Iran — which had refused to appear to defend their indefensible conduct. But the State Department intervened to protect Iran’s interests, asserting that dismissal was necessary to protect U.S. national security interests and uphold the waiver of claims in the Algiers Accords.
[...]
In the next 10 years, all our appeals, and other efforts to obtain justice and compensation, have been defeated by the State Department. At the same time, the department has aggressively protected the rights of all U.S. corporations and banks to seek compensation from Iran. Indeed each claim has been adjudicated, and literally billions of dollars awarded, through these channels and paid by Iran.

The signal that Iran has drawn from this is clear – the U.S. cares about protecting interests of its corporations — but has no real interest in protecting its diplomats, no matter the State Department’s lip service about to the importance of diplomatic immunity and the sacrosanct status of our embassies."

Read in full here.

I think his question deserves an answer.

Here is the relevant part of the Algiers Accords signed on January 19, 1981:

11. Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice and will thereafter bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any pending or future claim of the United States or a United States national arising out of events occurring before the date of this declaration related to (A) the seizure of the 52 United States nationals on November 4, 1979, (B) their subsequent detention, (C) injury to United States property or property of the United States nationals within the United States Embassy compound in Tehran after November 3, 1979, and (D) injury to the United States nationals or their property as a result of popular movements in the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which were not an act of the Government of Iran. The United States will also bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran in the courts of the United States of any pending or future claim asserted by persons other than the United States nationals arising out of the events specified in the preceding sentence.

The late Warren Christopher, then the State Department's Deputy Secretary negotiated the agreement. He was appointed 63rd Secretary of State from January 20, 1993 – January 17, 1997 by President Clinton.

Related articles

• Whose side is the State Dept. on? (politico.com)
• 'Death to England': British ambassador to Iran kicked out in backlash over sanctions (dailymail.co.uk)
• Tehran votes to expel Britain's ambassador - Telegraph.co.uk (telegraph.co.uk)
• Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain (dailytimes.com.pk)
• US, Allies to Hit Iran With New Sanctions (abcnews.go.com)

US Embassy Kinshasa Diplomat Reportedly Assaulted by Uruguayan Major in the DRC

Image via WikipediaA Nov 23 AP report carried by WaPo says that an unidentified female U.S. embassy official in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has accused an Uruguayan army major stationed in the country with assault.

The report which quotes an Uruguayan official was filed from Montevideo and there does not appear to be any other source on this at this time.  Note that approximately 1300 U.N. peacekeeping troops from Uruguay are posted in the DRC. Although the news report did not indicate where the alleged assault took place, US presence in the country includes the embassy in Kinshasa and a small office in Goma, the center of the UN presence in the east.

The most recent OIG report we could find for the US Embassy in the DRC is dated 2009.  At that time, U.S. Embassy Kinshasa has 63 American direct-hire employees plus 11 personal services contract positions. The official presence in the country includes the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Department of Defense, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) located on three compounds. It is entirely possible that the staffing number is no longer accurate due to mission expansion in the last couple of years.

The OIG report also note that "Steady mission growth since 2007 has resulted in a lack of office space, and more growth is projected. Recent plans to begin construction of a NEC have now been pushed back to 2014 because of the inability to find a suitable site."

More excerpts:

Through the U.S. presence in the city of Goma in the conflictive eastern Congo, Embassy Kinshasa is successfully advancing U.S. foreign policy interests through political and humanitarian representation, reporting, and delivery of humanitarian assistance.

The Embassy has carried out an impressive effort to establish and provide administrative and security support for the U.S. presence in Goma, a presence that is likely to be necessary for the next three to five years.

There is an important need to regularize the status of the Goma location as a small, medium-term presence in order to assure the security and proper functioning of the U.S. personnel there.

As U.S. engagement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo has grown, and U.S. development assistance has resumed, the size of the U.S. embassy in Kinshasa has increased greatly and is scheduled for further growth in the next several years. Future growth of embassy program staff needs to be adjusted to the embassy’s ability to provide security and administrative services.

SECURITY
The Ambassador and the DCM recognize the importance of security in Embassy Kinshasa, and support the strong security program of the regional security officer. Because of the poor maintenance record of local airlines, the Ambassador has prohibited Embassy employees from using local carriers with resultant difficulties in getting around this large country.

U.S. PRESENCE IN GOMA
The city of Goma in eastern Congo is located a 2.5 hour flight by UN aircraft and is unreachable by any other safe transport from Kinshasa. Goma is on the border with Rwanda and close to military clashes and consequent population flights in that region. The United States has been present in Goma with temporary duty (TDY) political and humanitarian representation since October 2007 in response to the request of Democratic Republic of the Congo President Kabila to the U.S. Government. USAID humanitarian officers, a political officer, and rotating diplomatic security officers have been based full-time in Goma since November 2008. In order to diminish costs and provide a safer location, the Embassy leased, furnished, and helped secure, with Department support, a residence and small compound for these permanent officers and frequent TDY visitors.

THE STAKES AND THE TIMEFRAME
Although Goma would not be the U.S. Government's first choice for a consulate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the situation in the Goma area encompasses the most significant U.S. interests and objectives in the Congo: regional and domestic stability and conflict, humanitarian assistance to the war-affected population, human rights and movements of refugees and internally displaced people. In addition to being the city closest to ongoing Rwanda/Congo military operations, Goma is the center of the UN presence in the east, and provides access through the United Nations to areas and populations affected by Ugandan operations against the Lord’s Resistance Army in the remote northeast Democratic Republic of the Congo. Goma is also a frequent stop for visiting congressional and congressional staff delegations. The Embassy estimates, and the OIG team agrees, that the United States will need a political and humanitarian presence in Goma for the next three to five years.

INSPECTION
The OIG team that visited Goma confirmed the excellent work being done by personnel there in representing U.S. interests with the UN peacekeeping mission, other diplomatic missions, local authorities and the many humanitarian nongovernmental organizations and the voluminous reporting that keeps an avid Washington and regional readership informed. The OIG team also confirmed the outstanding management and security support provided by Embassy Kinshasa in leasing, equipping, and securing a compound of two houses for the political officer and TDY personnel. The position of political officer in Goma is currently filled on a permanent basis by an officer officially assigned to Kinshasa, who receives full meals and incidental expenses in Goma. The regional security office in Kinshasa and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in Washington support Goma with TDY security officers and the FY 2011 MSP proposes a new assistant regional security officer position for Goma.

GOMA OPERATIONS
During the inspection, OIG personnel traveled to Goma, met with the Goma political officer and accompanied him to a number of meetings. The officer, experienced in Africa, is Embassy Kinshasa’s senior representative vis-à-vis Congolese and international authorities in Goma. He serves as the primary reporting officer on the regional conflicts in the eastern Congo. As the eyes and ears of the U.S. Government in a conflict-torn region, he sends in daily reports to the political section in Kinshasa, which then adds its own input, puts the reports into cable format, and transmits them to Washington, thus providing hungry Washington consumers with conflict-related reporting from this extremely isolated part of the Congo. He also reports by telephone to offices in the Departments of State and Defense, as well as to other embassies in the region.

The Goma officer has forged strong bonds with UN officials, European governments, nongovernmental and religious organizations, international media, and civil authorities. He attends the UN forces daily military briefing to remain current on UN operations and has accompanied UN officials to visit conflict zones throughout eastern and northern Congo. He has provided invaluable assistance to visiting Members of Congress and Congressional staff with interest in issues related to the conflict, humanitarian assistance, refugee affairs, sexual and gender-based violence, child soldiers, and trafficking in persons. The U.S Government presence in Goma is successfully advancing U.S. foreign policy interests in the region.

OIG Report No. ISP-I-09-36A, Inspection of Embassy Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo - May 2009(pdf)

Related articles

• US Diplomat Accuses Uruguay Major of Assault (abcnews.go.com)
• Mini-boom: DR Congo's volcanic tourism (bbc.co.uk)
• Congo tourism promotes erupting volcano (cbsnews.com)
• VIDEO: Eruption attracts tourists in DR Congo (bbc.co.uk)
• Tensions high with Congo's election on horizon (csmonitor.com)

 

 

 

US Mission Baghdad: Who will taste-test the locally sourced food for the cafeteria?

Department of Defense Photo

Via WaPo's Walter Pincus:

The State Department, seeking to cut costs in Iraq, is looking to locally purchase some of the food its personnel eat, potentially breaking from the U.S. military’s practice of importing all food and fuel.

American diplomats ate in a cafeteria in one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces until 2008, when a new U.S. Embassy compound was completed. The embassy cafeteria has served food imported by the military.

Military commanders required that, for sanitary and security reasons, all food and fuel be trucked in from Kuwait in convoys protected by soldiers or private security contractors.

The State Department’s undersecretary for Management, Patrick Kennedy, said he will continue using the Defense Logistics Agency to bring in food and fuel after January.
[...]
While the military did not seek to purchase food or fuel on the Iraqi market, Kennedy said in an interview last week that he had asked the logistics agency to begin looking for reliable local sources for those commodities.

“It will never get down to zero,” Kennedy said about the need for imported goods, but he said that State had already been purchasing some fuel on the Iraqi market. Buying food and fuel locally, Kennedy said, would cut the overall cost and reduce the need for convoy security guards.

Read in full here.

I'm not worried about our diplomats acclimatizing to the local bacteria, mind you.  All FS folks do that with every country they are posted to.  They buy local food and shop in local stores; they buy fresh fruits and veges from the corner green grocer or the open market next door (often seasoned with Clorox at home).  Except in war zones.

And oh, I'm sure the State Department can save quite a bundle from buying fuel and food locally. Maybe I should applaud such fiscal creativity?  I just want to point out to Mr. Kennedy that folks do not drink fuel, see? If they procure food locally, will the embassy hire some supertasters? According to this account, the late King Hussein I of Jordan relates in his 1962 autobiography that he uncovered a Syrian spy plot involving his cook to poison his food. The tip-off?  Apparently, the untimely deaths of the palace cats, victims of the assassin's try-outs. In this neighborhood where America is quite hated, this is not beyond the realm of possibility. 

This is Iraq, and the embassy, the largest in the world with potentially over 15,000 personnel by end of the year. They all need to eat.  And not MREs.  The military, with its command and supply chain structure in place (and never short of staff) did not try to procure food locally in all its years of operation in Iraq. And the State Department which does not have comparable structures or staff, will now buy local to feed its staff. Frankly, the thought of that is giving me a rather queasy stomach.

Of course, given that we have had several outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, perhaps I shouldn't worry too much?

Except that -- way back in October, the National Iraqi News Agency reported that Muqtada Al Sadr, leader of the Shiite al-Sadr Trend, considered all US embassy employees in Baghdad as “occupiers”, stressing that resisting them after 2011 is an obligation.

"In response to a query of one of his followers about the increase of the embassy employees' number from 5000 to 15000 after the expiry of SOFA, Muqtada said “they are all occupiers and resisting them after the end of the agreement is an obligation.”

That's a special mention from an Iraqi leader who commands not just powerful religious and political influence but also has his own army. We may think this war is over, but it's not.  Iraq is still a war zone. And make no mistake about it.  Our soldiers will be home but our diplomats and their guards will be in the crosshairs even as they try to continue "reconstructing" that country.

Related articles

• Iraqi Cleric Orders Stop To Attack On U.S. Troops (npr.org)
• Withdraw from Iraq on time, cleric warns U.S. (cbc.ca)
• Cleric says U.S. troops in Iraq legitimate targets (ctv.ca)
• U.S. Hiring Mercenary Air Force for Iraq Rescues (wired.com)