Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts

Friday, January 20, 2012

No Vacancy Yet at US Embassy Dublin But ...

Pittsburgh media reported this week that Ambassador Rooney is stepping down as U.S. ambassador to Dublin and rejoining the Pittsburgh Steelers. US Embassy Ireland just released a statement by Ambassador Rooney regarding his tenure:

“In reference to recent media reports, the role of Ambassador from the United States of America to Ireland is extremely rewarding work. It is a privilege to serve President Obama and the country, and to support and expand the excellent relationship we enjoy with Ireland. On July 4, 2012, I will have served three years in Dublin.  There is no specific date for departure.”

Photo from US Embassy Dublin

If Ambassador Rooney steps down after July 4, 2012, that does not leave a lot of time for a new nominee to get vetted and confirmed prior to the presidential election.  In all likelihood, a career diplomat, in this case, John Hennessey-Niland, the embassy's deputy chief of mission who arrived in Ireland on April 9, 2010 will keep things running until a new ambassador is nominated and arrived at post.  Which may not happen until the election dust settles and we get a new round of ambassadorships, possibly by the spring of 2013.

That's over a year away, I know ... but hurry! The early bird gets the worm; and the late one doesn't get any embassy in Europe.




State Dept Considering Closure of US Embassy Syria

Via the Office of the Spokesperson, January 20, 2012:

"While no decision has been made, we have serious concerns about the deteriorating security situation in Damascus, including the recent spate of car bombs, and about the safety and security of embassy personnel. We have requested that the government of Syria take additional security measures to protect our embassy, and the Syrian government is considering that request. We have also advised the Syrian government that unless concrete steps are taken in the coming days we may have no choice but to close the mission."

I hope that organized mob does not return for another attack while the Syrian Government is considering the State Department's request.   And I don't have an answer for this -- but just how much trust can you have on a government that has no compunction about killing its own people?

Update:
WaPo reported on January 24 that Syria’s foreign minister shrugged off warnings by the United States that it may close the US Embassy in Damascus due to inadequate security.

“That’s their business,” Walid al-Moualem was quoted as saying at a press conference in Damascus when asked about the threatened closure by a reporter from the U.S.-funded al-Hurra TV station. 

The US Embassy in Damascus is located on a busy intersection in the heart of the city, and apparently, the Syrian Government has been unresponsive to requests for greater security, including concrete barricades, not just from the US Embassy but also from other diplomatic missions in Damascus.  Two months ago, embassies and consulates of Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and France were attacked by Syrian mobs.




 
 
 
 

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Snapshot: Top 10 State Department Assistance Recipients (FY 2011)

Via USAspending.gov







Monday, January 16, 2012

US Mission Russia: Ambassador McFaul Makes Online Splash, and About Those 'Personal' Twitter Accounts

Earlier last week, the new US Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul launched his new twitter account @McFaul -- http://twitter.com/mcfaul.  By Thursday, the US Embassy in Moscow rolled out its introduction video of Ambassador McFaul via YouTube (below).  On Friday, he and his family were in route to Moscow, arriving on Saturday, just in time for his new blog to go live. Jet lag not allowed. Today, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov accepted copies of the ambassador's credentials.  Ambassador McFaul is now officially the second U.S. ambassador to Russia in 30 years who was not a career diplomat.



The 2:14 minute YouTube video cross-posted in Ambassador McFaul's brand new blog at http://m-mcfaul.livejournal.com/ has already garnered 2440 comments. I don't read/speak Russian so I don't know if the comments are favorable or not.

John Brown of John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 and former CAO at US Embassy in Moscow, has the following via HuffPo:
I've looked at/listened to newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul's recent video presentation to the people of Russia. Based on my Foreign Service experience in Moscow as Cultural Affairs Officer (1998-2001), several aspects of the talk struck me.

First, the negative ones, from the perspective of U.S. public diplomacy with the Russian Federation, and especially its younger generation:
[...]
1. Repeated references to the Soviet Union (including showing a map of that former geographical expression), which collapsed some 20 years ago;

2. The fact that the Ambassador did not speak in Russian (as his predecessor did fluently on YouTube clips), except for a few words at the end of his remarks*;

3. The use of the word "help" (translated as pomogat' in the subtitle) in U.S. dealings with the Russian population. Of all things Russians dislike most about foreigners, it is condescension of any sort on their part;

4. No reference to high Russian culture, except for Tchaikovsky (to which the Ambassador refers in the same breath as he does to Russian hockey); no references, even indirect, to intellectuals who condemned the USSR.

5. Irritating, feel-good background music that could be straight out of a U.S. TV commercial for a penile dysfunction pill.

Positive:

1. Mentioning a new visa agreement that will make it easier for Russians to visit the U.S.;

2. An effort to reach out to the Russian "provinces" by comparing them to the Ambassador's home state of Montana;

3. A "down-to-earth" approach that might appeal to the "muzhik" (regular guy) side in the character of many Russians;

4. Stress on people-to-people exchanges;

5. He did not go on for too long, as do so many Russian politicians.

*However, it is better, in official remarks, for a foreigner to speak in his own language than address Russians in bad Russian, which will quickly turn off his audience. A few words indicating an appreciation of their language, yes; a long delivery full of grammatical and pronunciation errors, no. The Russians, though more tolerant of foreign accents than some other Europeans, are a bit like the French who cringe when they have to endure an American murdering their mother tongue by trying awkwardly to express himself in it, in his effort to show that he "understands" them.
Read in full here: U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul's YouTube Presentation From a Public Diplomacy Perspective. 

More than the irritating background music, I actually got a headache from the speedy photo transitions in this video. It feels like going on a super sprint, in YouTube - makes you feel dizzzzyyy and out of breath. 

In any case, Ambassador McFaul actually speaks fluent Russian (as well as Polish and Portuguese), so he could have done this intro video in Russian; instead it is in English with Russian subtitles which is good since a bunch of folks in D.C. and the WH also do not speak Russian.

Must also note that his new Twitter account is @McFaul, not Ambassador McFaul like @AmbassadorRice (UN) or @AmbassadorRoos  (Japan).  Whether or not he continue as U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in a year or two, he remains @McFaul in the twitterverse. Which is good for him, but not so good for the US Embassy in Moscow, who would have to start from Twitter scratch with a new ambassador in a year or in five years, depending on how 2012 turns out.

The same thing with Ambassador Susan Rice, who has some
115,653 followers, and Ambassador John Roos with 48,152 followers; both are political appointees. The USUN Mission just like the US Embassy in Japan would have to start from zero when these political appointees end their tenure. Given that these offices actually have social media teams handling their online accounts, wouldn't it make mire more sense to use the position not the name as the handle for these accounts?  I can only find one -- @WHAAsstSecty -- formerly used by Arturo Valenzuela and currently used by the Acting Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson, which has done that. 

And what do you do with http://twitter.com/AmbStephens now that she is no longer the US ambassador to Seoul? Does it go to a twittermentery?

Anyway, I'm also confused about the "personal" notations on the ambassadors' Twitter accounts. Isn't a U.S. ambassador the personal representative of the President of the United States overseas, and the public face of the U.S. government in his/her host country?  Doesn't it follow that everything he/she says is official?  So then to pretend otherwise is rather silly, isn't it?

   



Saturday, January 14, 2012

Senator Nelson's Reasonableness Test: US Should Bill Iraq for US Embassy Security

Last year, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the 12th term Republican congressman from California's scenic 46th District and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made the news when he called for Iraq to repay a portion of the "mega-dollars" that Washington has spent since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.  Mr. Rohrabacher for the record did not actually say we should ask for a repayment now but once "Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country..."

This past week, it was Nebraska's retiring Democratic Senator Ben Nelson turn at bill collection (TSB has a post on this here) Below is a letter sent by Senator Nelson to Secretaries Panetta and Clinton telling them that the Iraqi government should be responsible for shouldering the cost of US Embassy security in Iraq:

Dear Mr. Secretary and Madam Secretary:

As you know, the United States concluded its military mission in Iraq in 2011. With that end, the U.S. Department of State now assumes responsibility for the civilian mission, which I understand will be heavily reliant on private contractors for security. I support ensuring the success of our efforts in Iraq, but am concerned about continuing to provide assistance to Iraq’s government, with the total cost being borne by the United States.

As a nation, our government continues to look for ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies within the U.S. Department of Defense. Therefore, I believe it is completely reasonable and in line with our agreements with other nations for the Government of Iraq to pay for the security of our remaining State Department personnel.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2011, General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the costs of retaining an American presence in Iraq. He noted that “in any nation in which [the United States is] present diplomatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation.” Thus, if Iraq is unable to provide security for U.S. personnel, then the Iraqi government should pay for the cost of doing so – rather than our nation’s taxpayers. Therefore, I encourage your departments to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government to underwrite the costs associated with our continued diplomatic presence there.

During that same hearing, I also asked General Dempsey whether it was possible to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government for cost-sharing in order to continue providing for the security training of Iraqi troops and every other mission we might accept to help the country secure, stabilize and self-govern. General Dempsey responded that such agreements are possible and that there is always a negotiation on the cost and who will bear it.

I want to ensure that the burden of such operations is placed primarily on Iraq, in line with those agreements we share with other nations when we conduct multilateral or bilateral exercises around the world. The Iraqi government is more than capable of sharing or underwriting costs associated with a U.S. advise-and-assist presence, as the Iraqi economy continues to grow and government revenues are beginning to increase to that of pre-war levels.

While I understand there are many challenges facing the Government of Iraq, it is important for the United States to make it clear that we expect the new government to be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate learning from the Administration what agreements are being made with the Government of Iraq for further missions and how the cost of those missions will be covered. Thank you both for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

E. Benjamin Nelson
United States Senator

It is true that the host country is responsible for providing protection to diplomatic personnel and missions, as established by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 22(2) says that "The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity."

One could argue that Syria did not lived up to its responsibility to prevent "impairment of its dignity" when it allowed a mob to attack our embassy in Syria in July last year. But other times, the local police protecting diplomatic and consular premises can pay dearly with their lives. During the February 2003 attack of the US Consulate in Karachi, for instance, the gunmen killed two police officers and wounded five other policemen in front of the consulate.  The 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen resulted in 19 deaths and 16 injuries including six Yemeni policemen. 

Iraq is responsible for the protection of the US Mission in Iraq, just as the United States is responsible for the protection of all diplomatic premises within the United States. But while the host country is expected to provide the outermost security of diplomatic missions, it cannot be expected to provide guard services for the embassy compound. 

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, of course, is like no other diplomatic mission in the world.  According to Stratfor's assessment of diplomatic security after the troops withdrawal,  there are some 16,000 personnel, 5,000 of whom are security contractors working inside our heavily fortified embassy and consulates in Iraq.  The remaining 11,000 include diplomats, intelligence officers and analysts, defense attaches, military liaison personnel and aid and development personnel.

If the Government of Iraq decides that it should have a corresponding number of personnel - 16,000 Iraqis -  attached to its embassy in Washington, D.C., how would that work?  Congress would be up in arms!

But perhaps the more tricky part is Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says that "1) In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission; 2) The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a nondiscriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category."

With that number of personnel, there probably is a specific agreement in place. But let's just say that there is none and Senator Nelson gets his way and bill Iraq for the cost of diplomatic security in Iraq.  The Iraqi Government may just decide that 16,000 diplomatic, security and support personnel at U.S. Mission Iraq is a tad too much. Due to ongoing security challenges in the country, it may just decide that a, say 150-member US staff is all it could support. Which would actually save the US Government money, and would allow the State Department to reallocate its tight resources to other areas not considered the center of the bureaucratic universe.

 



 
 
 

Friday, January 13, 2012

The Newtster's Pick for Secretary of State Endorses the Mittster

Secretary Rice announces the nomination of Joh...Image via WikipediaRemember last December when I blogged about Newt Gingrich's pick for Secretary of State? He told some crowd that he would appoint former United Nations Representative John Bolton as his Secretary of State.

But Ambassador Bolton had somebody else in mind. On January 11, Ambassador Bolton announced his endorsement of Mitt Romney on Fox News’ “On the Record” with Greta van Susteren. He called the Mittster “the person who can best lead the party, best articulate our conservative principles, and is most likely to beat Barack Obama.”

What took you so long, John B.? Iowa by eight votes? Check.  NH by 39.3%? Check. A 32% projected vote range in the Palmetto state? 

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin may have the answer:

"I spoke to former U.N. ambassador John Bolton this morning about his endorsement last night of Mitt Romney. He said he has been contemplating for some time whether to endorse a GOP candidate. “I just thought you oughta decide at some point,” he said. He said it was critical that he back someone who could beat President Obama. “I do think Governor Romney is the best candidate to defeat Obama. Jim Baker [former secretary of Treasury and state] gave me some great advice: ‘Keep your eye on the prize.’ ”
By Friday the 13th, the former U.N. ambassador has showed that can be one of the Mittster's fiercest attack dogs of President Obama's foreign policy. Via CBS:
"He's not only the most radical president in history domestically; he is the first president, Republican or Democrat, at least since Franklin Roosevelt, who didn't get up every morning thinking first about what threats the United States faces. [...] He just doesn't care about national security the way other presidents did,"  Bolton said of President Obama to an audience (in Hilton Head, South Carolina).
Keeping his eye on the prize, no doubt. Maybe he'll be able to parachute to Foggy Bottom from a Romney plane ...   



 
 
 

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.










Snapshot: Top 15 State Department Contractors (FY 2011)

via USASpending.gov







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.





Thursday, January 12, 2012

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.   


     






 
 
 
 

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Secretary Clinton swears in Ambassador-designate to Russia Mike McFaul

"Now really, the only downside to this appointment is that those of us here in Washington who have had the opportunity to work with Mike will miss him. And he is, as the President calls him on a regular basis, McFaul. We look forward to hearing about McFaul’s stories of pickup basketball games at Spaso House. Donna has continued advocacy on issues close to her and my heart – families, women, and children. And I’m even told there may be a few rock and roll sessions when Mike’s band mates from The Pigs – (laughter) – visit Moscow. And it’s not an agricultural issue, Ambassador. (Laughter.) I don’t think they’ll need to be quarantined with their instruments."

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
January 10, 2012
more



Secretary Clinton's Sounding Board, Primarily a "Cathartic" Outlet for Employees?

ca·thar·tic [kuh-thahr-tik]
1. of or pertaining to catharsis.
2. Also, ca·thar·ti·cal. evacuating the bowels; purgative.
3. Psychiatry
a. psychotherapy that encourages or permits the discharge of pent-up, socially unacceptable affects.

b. discharge of pent-up emotions so as to result in the alleviation of symptoms or the permanent relief of the condition.
An FSO once called the Sounding Board, "one of the greatest things to come from Secretary Clinton's reign over the foreign affairs."    He explained that it is "a message board where people can post ideas on ways to improve the State Department and other people can viciously shoot them down.  It is high entertainment." 

I don't know about "high entertainment" but according to a December 2009 issue of State Magazine, the Sounding Board, at http://soundingboard.state.gov (behind the firewall, sorry!) provides Secretary Clinton a window into employee concerns at the State Department, but that it also serves another valuable purpose: "It promotes communication between employees, alerts management to problems and concerns and gives management the opportunity to provide feedback or dispel myths."

Here is how it works (extracted from State Magazine):
  • First, employees submit ideas about how to better achieve our foreign policy goals (with an emphasis on the “how,” not necessarily the “what” or the “why” of foreign policy). The ideas should discuss the impact or cost savings, resource requirements and any obstacles or challenges. Colleagues can then comment on the ideas, adding perspective, highlighting concerns and filling in details that may be missing.
  • Unlike an e-mail suggestion box in which only a few people see an idea, question or response, an online forum such as The Sounding Board opens the conversation to everyone who is interested. The interactive dialogue fosters a community of ideas where employees can share thoughts and best practices.
  • Since its launch in February [2009], employees have logged more than 250,000 visits to the site and submitted more than 900 ideas, which have generated more than 3,200 follow-up comments. The response has been so overwhelming that The Sounding Board staff has been unable to keep up with submissions.

The article includes a couple of its touted results:
"The Bureau of Administration implemented a bike-share program to facilitate local trips to interagency meetings and will also build more showers for bicycle commuters. The Harry S Truman Building and the Foreign Service Institute cafeterias introduced “greenware” disposable food packaging and committed to reducing non-biodegradable waste."

Also, some nine months after it was launched, the Sounding Board reportedly was recognized as "a model for employee outreach and was one of three innovative programs studied by the National Economic Council and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy."  Apparently, other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, were looking to the Sounding Board for good ideas as they launch their own initiatives.

Fast forward to December 2010.  Below is an excerpt from Everything Is Broken: My Two Years at the U.S. Department of State, written by Brendan O’Connor, a master’s student in Community Development and Action at Vanderbilt University. He worked in the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations from July 2008 to July 2010:
"[B]efore resigning to attend graduate school in the summer of 2010, I had the chance to meet one-on-one with a high-level manager (and now ambassador) involved in oversight of the Sounding Board. He stated that the Sounding Board, which had been sold to us as a bottom-up tool for employee ideas in early 2009, was primarily a “cathartic” outlet for employees. Someone might want to explain that to the mass of State employees who cropped up to suggest specific, often in-depth ideas online — over 1,500 by the summer of last year. Indeed, when I left there was no meaningful process in place to review and take appropriate action to either reject or on some level adopt these employee suggestions."
Read in full here.

So hundreds of ideas later -- a senior official of Secretary Clinton's staff called the Sounding Board a "cathartic" outlet?"  Cathartic as in "purgative," as in "strongly laxative."

Sounds dirty.

We have a few nosy questions concerning this new model of employee engagement:
How many ideas have been submitted to the Sounding Board since its launched in Feb 2009?

How many submitted ideas are currently under official consideration?

How many ideas have been implemented?


How much cost-savings have been realized through the implemented ideas?

Is the amount of the cost-savings more than or equal to the cost of manhours to run and manage the Sounding Board?


What process is used by the Sounding Board Team to screen the submitted ideas for review and action?

Since the Board provides Secretary Clinton "a window into employee concerns" how many ideas have been brought to her attention?

If you had luck getting your idea to stick using the Sounding Board, we'd like to hear from you - on the record or on background.



Related Post:
Oh, No! The Sounding Board is in WaPo's In The Loop










Monday, January 9, 2012

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012

New Bureaus and All That Jazz, and You Can Still Do More With Less

On January 4, the State Department announced the creation of the new Bureau of Counterterrorism.

Because the QDDR said so.  The new bureau will reportedly "lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism." According to a recent official briefing, the new CT bureau will start with some 70 full time government employees including detailees, contractors, and the like but will eventually top off at approximately 120 staffers in all. It has  four functional directorates: Homeland Security and Multilateral Affairs; Operations; Programs, Policy, and Budget; and Regional Affairs.

The predecessor organization to CT was the Office for Combatting Terrorism, created in October 1972 upon the recommendation of a special committee appointed by President Richard Nixon following the Munich Olympics terrorist attack. The committee determined that an office was needed within the Department of State to provide day-to-day counterterrorism coordination and to develop policy initiatives and responses for the U.S. Government on the issue of international terrorism.

On Aug 1, 1976, the Department of State elevated the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and Coordinator of the Office for Combating Terrorism to that of Director of the Office for Combating Terrorism, with rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of State. All Directors have been designated by the Secretary of State, not commissioned. The Department has changed the incumbent's title twice since 1976 to "Ambassador at Large for Counter-Terrorism" on Nov 4, 1985, and to "Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism" on May 1, 1989.

In 1994, Congress officially mandated the Bureau of Counterterrorism in Public Law 103-236 [H.R. 2333]. In 1998, Congress further defined the role of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in Public Law 105-277 [H.R. 4328]:

There is within the office of the Secretary of State a Coordinator for Counterterrorism...who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.... The principal duty of the coordinator shall be the overall supervision (including policy oversight of resources) of international counterterrorism activities. The Coordinator shall be the principal adviser to the Secretary of State on international counterterrorism matters. The coordinator shall be the principal counterterrorism official within the senior management of the Department of State and shall report directly to the Secretary of State...The Coordinator shall have the rank and status of Ambassador at Large.
But CT did not get elevated into a bureau until now. 

Friday, January 6, 2012

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.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Quote: US Mission Iraq - Off the Radar Screen Until ...

"What is going to be the will of our country and our Congress to support our activities there in the out years? [...] Once the troops are really gone completely, other than security cooperation folks, but once they are completely gone, this turns into just another diplomatic post. And until there are some tragic events there, I think it is off the radar screen."

Grant Green

Under Secretary of State for Management, 2001-2005
in With Huge Embassy, U.S. Still A Presence In Iraq


Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Insider Quote: 'Getting off the X' in Iraq

"My security colleagues would call it 'getting off the X'. [...] We run. We go. We do not stand and fight. We will execute a high-speed J-turn and we will get as far away from the attackers as we possibly can."

Patrick Kennedy
Under Secretary of State for Management, U.S. Department of State
in As soldiers leave, U.S. diplomats face huge Iraq challenge


Sunday, December 18, 2011

Confirmations: Joyce Barr (State/A), Michael McFaul (Moscow), Other Nominations Remain in "Status Quo"

WH photo
During the Floor Wrap Up for Saturday, December 17, 2011, the Senate confirmed the following nominees for the State Department:

#421 Joyce A. Barr – to be Assistant Secretary of State (Administration)

#503 Michael Anthony McFaul – to be Ambassador of the US of America to the Russian Federation.



Earlier the same afternoon, Senator Reid asked for unanimous consent that the Senate take up and confirm the following nominations on the Executive Calendar but Senator McConnell objected to the request.

#421 Joyce A. Barr – to be Assistant Secretary of State (Administration)

#422 Michael A. Hammer – to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Public Affairs)

#501 Mari Carmen Aponte – to be Ambassador of the US of America to the Republic of El Salvador.

#502 Adam E. Namm – to be Ambassador of the US of America to the Republic of Ecuador.

#503 Michael Anthony McFaul – to be Ambassador of the US of America to the Russian Federation.

#504 Roberta S. Jacobson – to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Western Hemisphere Affairs),

#505 Elizabeth M. Cousens – to be Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador.

#506 Elizabeth M. Cousens – to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The Majority calendar indicates that "All nominations received by the Senate during the 112th Congress, first session, will remain in status quo, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate."
See Rule XXXI #6: Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.

So, the nominees need not have to be resubmitted again, but since the GOP has blocked adjournment, there will be no official 'recess' and the Senate will have scheduled pro-forma sessions during the Christmas break. Which means, President Obama will not/not be able to make any recess appointments.

On the controversial recess appointees, it looks like Ambassador Aponte's nomination (El Salvador) as well as Ambassador Bryza's (Azerbaijan) with the late pleas are not totally dead. (Update 12/20: The Orlando Sentinel reports that Senator Reid's office said Monday there still might be a chance to salvage Aponte's nomination, through complex Senate procedures." I don't know how Ambassador Bryza's nomination could be saved when he did not even get his SFRC hearing, much less the committee's endorsement)

Here is a useful explanation from the CRS:
Nominations that are not confirmed or rejected are returned to the President at the end of a session or when the Senate adjourns or recesses for more than 30 days (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). If the President still wants a nominee considered, he must submit a new nomination to the Senate. The Senate can, however, waive this rule by unanimous consent. For example, on November 19, 1999, at the close of the first session of the l06* Congress, Majority Leader Trent Lott asked and received unanimous consent “that all nominations received by the Senate during the 10thCongress, first session, remain in status quo.” Similar agreements were reached in earlier Congresses as well. The majority leader or his designee also may exempt specific nominees by name from the agreement, allowing them to be returned during the recess or adjournment. Just before the recess between the first and second sessions of the 107th Congress, for example, the Senate by unanimous consent agreed to hold all nominations in the status quo except for one, which was returned to the President. Prior to the August recess in the 107thCongress, however, the Senate did not reach such an agreement, and 162 pending nominations were returned. President George W. Bush re-nominated many of the nominees after the recess.