September Nominations - Part 2

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

110^th CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Time: 2:30 P.M.

Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Presiding: Senator Kerry

Mr. James F. Jeffrey

to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey

Ambassador Jeffrey, a Career Member of the Foreign Service, previously served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State. His responsibilities included leading the Iran Policy Team and coordinating public diplomacy. He also served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Iraq from August 2005 to August 2006. Prior to this, he served as U.S. Charge d'affairs to Iraq from March 2005 to June 2005. He served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad from June 2004 through March 2005. Earlier in his career, Ambassador Jeffrey served as Ambassador to Albania from October 2002 to May 2004. Other assignments have included Deputy Chief of Mission in Turkey and Kuwait and Deputy Special Representative for Bosnian Implementation.

Ambassador Jeffrey received his bachelor's degree from Northeastern University and his master's degree from Boston University. He served in the U.S. Army in Germany and Vietnam from 1969 to 1976. He has 31 years of experience in the Foreign Service and has served in Turkey three times previously.

Mr. Gene A. Cretz

to be Ambassador to Libya

Mr. Cretz of New York is a Career Member of the Foreign Service and currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv. Prior to this, he served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Damascus. Earlier in his career, he served as Minister Counselor of Economic and Political Affairs at the United States Embassy in Cairo. Mr. Cretz received his bachelor's degree from the University of Rochester and his master's degree from State University College at Buffalo. Mr. Cretz has 27 years of experience in the Foreign Service and will be our first ambassador to Libya in 36 years.

Brief as Photos - 8: Campaign Props

It was early Monday morning when we were summoned to the Front Office for an urgent meeting. We were told that one of the political candidates running for office back home has requested to visit the embassy that week. No one seemed to know why but the ambassador who was a political appointee from the ruling party suggested that the visit was a harmless one. “She will be in town next week for speaking engagements and would like to say hello to her countrypeople,” he explained, almost sounding as if we were country bumpkins.

One of the senior officers brought up the restrictions under the Hatch Act. But the ambassador waved that away. “She is not campaigning here, folks. And we’re not supporting her campaign. She is a private citizen visiting us and we should be mighty proud to be visited by somebody who could be the first woman president of our blessed nation.”

“But won’t we be giving the impression of support by entertaining such a visit?” asked a less senior officer.

“Wouldn’t she be using this visit to burnish her foreign policy credentials and us as props? Is that allowed?” somebody asked loudly from the back of the room. “I don’t like being used as a campaign prop,” I declared helpfully.

"I heard that she was a bee-keeper, is that true?" asked the secretary.

“I stopped voting after Nixon, so I don’t care who gets elected. But Sir, I am concerned that her visit would throw my appointments on Wednesday into a mad scramble. I have a thousand people scheduled for interviews,” added the woman sitting in front.

“Listen up, boys and girls! I have requested and received guidance on this already. We’ve been told “no” and although I disagreed with that, I thought it would be useful for ya’all to know about this should you receive inquiries from local contacts. I have personally called her to apologize for turning down her request; our Press Officer here will distribute talking points so we’re all on the same page,” the ambassador explained.

That must have been the longest unscripted speech I have ever heard him uttered. This was the same ambassador who proudly proclaimed his love of golf and gambling as credentials for becoming ambassador. I supposed you only need to tee or deal, so he got a point there but it was a revelation to hear him speak in complete sentences.

By mid week, the candidate was in town with the entire press corps in tow to mark this historic occasion – at the border crossing pointing at the marker dividing the United States from its neighbor, at the tomb of the Great Hero laying a wreath of white gladiolas, at a farm for bat crap for renewable energy, at the wave factory (I seriously don’t know what they manufactured there), and other such places. She was so popular, that the local newspapers had to run a morning and afternoon edition since she arrived. By Friday, after her big do at the Presidential Hotel, I was looking forward for the traffic and TV programming to return to their normal schedules. But on Friday afternoon, just before quitting time, pandemonium broke in the most unexpected way.

“My name is ---. I am an American and I want to see my Ambassador!” the presidential candidate told the embassy guard at the gate as cameras flashed.

“We are closed now madam. What is the problem?” the guard politely inquired.

“Do I have to talk to you? The ambassador knows me,” she answered sweetly in a low voice as she smiled and waved to the cameras.

“I am the embassy guard madam, you have to talk to me or you don’t go in,” the old guard answered simply, unfazed by the crowd.

“Very well; please tell the person in charge that I’ve lost my passport and I need a new one A.S.A.P,” she enunciated each word carefully as if afraid that the guard would not understand what she was saying. Then she turned and waved to the adoring media some more.

To make a long story short, when the security officers and the senior embassy officials got wind of the fact that the candidate was really at the gate, they had no choice but to come down and meet her. The Ambassador excitedly escorted her to the Consular Section where the Consular Chief (the one who was worried about her visa appointments) supervised the ACS officer in quickly generating an emergency passport.

The next day, the front pages of local and international papers came out with full spreads of her foreign policy meetings at the American Embassy. My favorite photo was of the candidate blowing a kiss to her countrypeople as she got into a car departing the embassy grounds. Right smack in the middle of that photo was somebody wearing a big pumpkin head. The caption reads: "Who is this Pumpkin?"

Tee-hee! That was me.

Read:
About this series and the All Persons Fictitious Disclaimer

Google "In Quotes" and the Presidentiables

Google Labs has just opened a new project to the public called In Quotes. The feature allows you to find quotes from stories linked to from Google News. The Google release says that direct quotes, are concrete units of information that describe how newsmakers represent themselves. Google News compiles these quotations from online news stories and sorts them into browsable groups based on who is being quoted. The quotes and their speakers are determined automatically by a computer program and the company does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the information that we see on screen

You use a pull down menu to determine the different sets of people you want to compare about a particular topic. The feature currently allows you to choose and compare quotes from political candidates and other political figures. When you click the Spin button, the quotes will rotate and the system will display two new quotes for you to compare. This way you will be able to compare multiple quotes about a specific topic from the two speakers you've chosen. There are 20 political figures available in the United States version of the site (including the leading candidates from both parties who are displayed by default), with other editions available for Canada, India, and the UK. There are also 20 current topics on display from Iran and Iraq, to human rights and immigration.

It is in Google Labs for a reason; it still needs refining on how each keyword is used. But it's fun to tinker with. Check it out!

Reliance on Soft Power: Reforming Public Diplomacy

Earlier this week, Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley, the Vice Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy gave a testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs’ (Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia) on Reliance on Soft Power: Reforming the Public Diplomacy Bureaucracy.

This is part of what she said in her opening statement: “[The] Commission reviewed the extensive recent literature on U.S. public diplomacy and determined that few if any observers had ever sought to “look under the hood” and study the impact of internal human resources practices and structures on our Nation’s efforts to communicate with foreign publics. We decided to explore this basket of issues, our thinking being that, in the final analysis, people are the key to the success of our Nation’s public diplomacy. Over a one-year period, the Commission met with scores of State Department officials and outside experts on PD human resources issues and we learned a great deal in the process.

In sum […], we found that the State Department:

• recruits smart people, but not necessarily the right people, for the PD career track,
• tests candidates on the wrong knowledge sets,
• trains its officers in the wrong skills, and
• evaluates those officers mostly on the wrong tasks.

In terms of personnel structures:

• State has a PD bureaucracy in Washington that hasn’t been critically examined since the 1999 merger and that may or may not be functioning optimally,
• its overseas public affairs officers are spending the majority of their time administering rather than communicating with foreign publics, and
• meaningful integration of public diplomacy into State Department decision-making and staffing remains elusive.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we’re not “getting the people part right.”

Big ouch! This is bad -- not the bad, bad kind, but the bad, good kind; that is, it’s good that this is out in the open; though some folks may get bitey reading this.

My former boss would simply ask, “Do we have the right people on the bus?” Unfortunately, more than a few would answer “no,” but would argue the Rumsfieldian view that "you go to war with the staff you have, not the staff you might want or wish to have at a later time." And then you just chug along, over the EER humps and everything else.

"On recruitment, very simply, the Department of State makes no special effort to recruit individuals into the public diplomacy (or “PD”) career track who would bring into the Foreign Service experience or skills specifically relevant to the work of communicating with and influencing foreign publics. No serious presidential or Congressional campaign, or private-sector company, would hire communications personnel who have no background in communications, but to a large degree, that is exactly what the United States Government is doing."

In fairness to the State Department, the agency makes no special effort to recruit folks into the PD track or any other track based on experience or skills relevant to the work in the other four career tracks (political, economics, management, consular). I do think that State prides itself with growing its own people which has its merits. But whereas in the past we have the luxury of time to grow and teach new graduates on how the world works, in this new universe of constant change, we don’t have that luxury. Why spend two years training an Arabic speaker, if you can hire somebody who already speaks Arabic, or Chinese, or Urdu?

"Turning to the Foreign Service examination process, we found that the Foreign Service Officer Test and Oral Assessment do not specifically test for public diplomacy instincts and communication skills. Since we neither recruit for, nor test for, these skills, it is thus possible for candidates to enter the PD career track – and, for that matter, the other four Foreign Service career tracks – without having any documented proficiency in core PD-related skills. This is problematic. The Commission believes we need to modify the exam – particularly the Oral Assessment – to include more substantive PD content."

Actually, not just core PD-related skills but other skills as well. The thing that’s inherently problematic in the process is applicants for entry level jobs in all the career tracks have to select their cone/track during the application stage. I have seen some officers with minimal interpersonal skills ending up as Consular Officers, or folks with no stage presence ending up as communicators in chief. How that happened? Blind spots. What we think we know and how we think we are, or where we are good at, does not always reflect as clearly when we peer into the looking glass of real life. Exacerbating this is the fact that switching cone is as fun as having a root canal.

"In terms of public diplomacy training, though there have clearly been some improvements in recent years, a number of conspicuous, and serious, blind-spots persist. For one, we make virtually no effort to train our PD officers in either the science of persuasive communication or the nuts and bolts of how to craft and run sophisticated message campaigns. The Commission believes we need to rectify this. We would like to see more substantive PD offerings at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, including a rigorous nine-month course analogous to the highly regarded one currently offered to economic officers."

We have some missions where entry level officers on their first tour are sent out to perform public outreach in print/online media, tv, and radio with close to no training. Well, actually as I’ve heard it told, one boss saw it fit to work with the PD officer to give one batch of officers some training, including apparently “murder boards,” but after that outreach program received an award, the next batch of officers got zero guidance (short term goals are terribly popular in some parts of this universe) but the public outreach nonetheless continued. I can understand why an officer, even a smart one who’s never been on television would lose sleep and sweat bullets over this one. Public diplomacy is not the area where you want to throw your staff members into the water to see who sinks or floats! Good grief! If we don’t send a soldier to war without training them how to shot, we definitely should not send any of our officers to fight the war of ideas without "weapons" training. In a war zone, bullets are fired and spent and you die, in this other war, ideas, even the unkind ones have the tendency to live on and thrive. Seriously, if our officers have to be effective warriors of ideas, we cannot afford to let them simply wing it -- no matter how smart they may be.

"With respect to the State Department’s employee evaluation report (or “EER”) form, the essential problem is that it lacks a section specifically devoted to PD outreach, and thus contains no inherent requirement that State Department employees actually engage in such outreach. Until it does, PD officers overseas will continue to spend the overwhelming majority of their time behind their desks administering, rather than out directly engaging foreign publics. The Commission wants to see outreach built into the EER form and we also want to see at least one substantive PD communication task built into the work requirements of every PD officer in the field."

Drat! Don’t get me started on this one. The EER is supposedly a performance evaluation report but in reality, it is performance negotiation document that flies back and forth between the ratee, the rating officer and the reviewing officer. I’ve seen folks negotiate to remove a damning line; negotiate to insert a favorable line, rating officers fluffing the accomplishments of protégées, and I’ve also seen rating officers who worked hard and long on an accurate evaluation of performance. But it takes all kinds to make the world go round, even this one. Suffice to say that EER time sucks a lot of energy, and endless milliseconds out of human existence. If you read, Chris Argyris’ “Some Causes of Organizational Effectiveness Within the State Department,” from the 1960’s, you’ll be surprised how things have changed, and have not really changed (sorry, can’t provide a link; you’d have to hunt this paper down at the Bunche Library in Main State).

It is true that there is no specific box for PD outreach in the EER form, but the promotion precepts list public outreach as a subset under Communication and Foreign Language Skills. The form is also used by all officers not just PD officers. However, should the PD outreach becomes a primary or secondary requirement for all officers, then I see the need to tweak the form. Alas, I see a need to tweak more than the EER form.

"Finally, a few words about the integration of public diplomacy officers into State Department staffing. The stated goal of the 1999 merger of the USIA into the State Department was to integrate PD considerations, and PD personnel, more fully into the “mainstream” of State Department planning and policymaking. The Commission has found that this integration remains largely elusive, and, concomitantly, that PD officers continue to be significantly under-represented in the ranks of the Department’s senior management. As we put it in the report, “The PD career track is no longer ‘separate,’ but it certainly is not yet ‘equal.’” If the Department is to attract and retain first-rate PD officers, then it needs to demonstrate that these officers will be regarded as capable of holding senior Department positions."

I don’t have the stats for this but my bare understanding was that when USIA was folded into State in 1999, a considerable number of old hands left. If true, I deduce that some mid-level officers in 1999 who would have been in the Senior Foreign Service now are no longer working for State. Public Diplomacy, the first fifth generalist cone also did not come into being until USIA was abolished in October 1, 1999. If I remember correctly, the average time between promotions is 7 years. Even if State hired PD officers in 1999, and I don't know offhand if it did, that leave us with mid-level folks anywhere between the FS01-FS03 ranks. Add to that the mid-level staffing deficits that State has been experiencing and you get to the country of "no longer separate but not yet equal" that the report is talking about.

I actually would really like to revised the report's last line above: If the Department is to attract and retain first-rate PD officers, then it needs to demonstrate that career Foreign Service Public Diplomacy officers not political appointees or Fifth Avenue marketing hacks, will be regarded as capable of holding senior Department positions. And State could start the broom in its Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Bureau (“R”) as a brilliant example.

I’m still hunting for the copy of the full 2008 report but you can read the full text of Ambassador Bagley’s testimony here. Gotta run, have to feed a screaming baby and hamster.

Steve Coll on the Problem of Pakistan

AP reported yesterday that Pakistani soldiers and tribesman shot down a suspected U.S. military drone close to the Afghan border Tuesday night. The United States challenged the account. "We're not aware of any drones being down," said a senior U.S. official, who speaking on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of disputing a U.S. ally in the war against terrorist groups.

Is it just me or are things getting dicey there? Seven years and this one is still out there. I'm not a rocket scientist but something is not working people.

Steve Coll recently wrote about the problem of Pakistan for the New Yorker. Brief excerpt below, read the entire text here:

"It is easy to see the need for a comprehensive, even radical rethinking of U.S. aid to Pakistan, which has been heavily militarized and patently ineffective at advancing the country’s stability. But exactly how that aid should be restructured and rethought is a very complicated problem, in part because it so difficult to address the short-term threat of terrorism emanating from within Pakistan at a time when counterterrorism policy and its sponsor, the United States, are deeply unpopular—so unpopular that some Pakistani legislators, rather than recommitting to a joint counterterrorism campaign, would prefer to declare war on the United States. Some suggest that the United States simply get out of the way or accept its impotency. It would be wonderful if we could learn to conduct foreign policy in a more Hippocratic style, but in any event, here the stakes are too high for passivity. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not widely popular either, at least, and with attacks like the one on the Marriott, striking at civilians and at the country’s economic stability, they risk overplaying their hand and creating opportunities for the government to move against them more forcefully [...]

On television shows and in the movies, we romanticize covert action of this kind as bold and daring, but military history suggests that it is usually of very limited strategic value. It is usually most effective, as it was during the Second World War, when it serves as a kind of extension or multiplier of a successful overt policy. This may have been the case, too, with the covert action arm of the “surge,” which Bob Woodward has highlighted in his recent book. But covert action fails, as at the Bay of Pigs, when frustrated and desperate Presidents seize on secret war as a substitute for a successful declared or open policy that also involves diplomacy, economic measures, and so forth. The problem with covert U.S. raids in the Pakistani tribal territories today is not that they are unjustified—the Taliban and Al Qaeda are vicious adversaries, and they pose what the national-security lawyers call a “clear and present danger” to the United States and to Pakistan. The problem is that in the attenuating months of the Bush Administration, covert policy has dominated U.S. policy, and often controlled it—and it obviously isn’t working.

Ay caramba! Is this the end result of the underfunding of our foreign affairs agency (the organization that used to be called our primary foreign policy arm), or did somebody just checked the wrong box?

Our Woman in Seoul

U.S. Ambassador to Korea Kathleen Stephens (left) is sworn in at the U.S State Department on Monday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as her son James look on.
Courtesy of Yonhap

An unnamed candidate is doing the rounds at the U.N. trying to gain foreign policy gravitas through osmosis (if one has semi permeable membrane, it might work; otherwise, don't bet on it). It is probably wise to note that in osmosis, if you are put in a solution which is more concentrated than you are, then you shrivel up, and if you are put in a solution less concentrated than you are, you expand and burst! Either way, not a very pretty sight. I would caution osmotic shock between now and whenever the party leaves New York, but this warning is probably a tad too late. Still, I wanted to be helpful.

In the meantime, in the real world .... here is one woman of substance worth talking about.

Three months after a couple of senators put a hold on her nomination (PDF file) for U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, Kathleen Stephens was finally sworn into office at the State Department. Her swearing in ceremony was reportedly attended by Republican Senator John Warner, the only Korean War veteran in the U.S. Senate and Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. Forces Korea.

And yesterday, Ambassador Stephens finally made it (returned, that is, given her history with the place) to South Korea. The local papers were abuzz over our woman in Seoul who marks many firsts in the "Land of the Morning Calm."

One editorial says: "New United States Ambassador to Korea Kathleen Stephens (Shim Eun-kyung is her Korean name) represents several firsts. To begin with, she is the first woman among the 21 American ambassadors to Seoul and she is the first to speak fluent Korean. She worked at a middle school in South Chungcheong Province as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in the mid-seventies. She married a Korean and had a child here, so she knows how Koreans live and feel better than most. This is why there is so much interest and high expectation regarding her arrival."

Upon arrival at the airport, she went right to work by stressing our two countries' solid bilateral alliance, citing a Korean proverb, ``Even the rivers and mountains change in 10 years'' South Korea remains a key ally of the United States and a main player in the region, she told reporters. She took note of the fact that South Korea has changed a lot in the economic and political landscape over the past 30 years. She underlined that close ties between the two countries are necessary to solve major pending issues such as a free trade agreement, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the visa-waiver program.

Here is a personal narrative that no press release could even quite compare. Just the fact that she has lived among them and is fluent in their language is enough to generate good vibes and goodwill. On the other hand, to know its language is to learn the country's soul; the kind of knowing that's needed to make one an effective interlocutor in a region brimming with peril and promise.

To have the ability to think like the other and anticipate the other's moves within a cultural reality is needed whether one is playing to win or negotiating a draw. We need that kind of ability in all our diplomats as we march into the more complex world of the 21st century. But Congress has taken a nap.

September Nominations - Part 1

With 117 days left in office, the Bush Administration is chugging along with a few more nominations through the CFR over at the Senate.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

110^th CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Time: 2:00 P.M.

Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Presiding: Senator Boxer

Mr. Sung Y. Kim

Of California, a Foreign Service Officer of Class One Career Member of the Foreign Service, Class of Counselor (just promoted), with the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Special Envoy for the Six Party Talks. Mr. Kim has been in the Foreign Service for 19 years.

Mr. C. Steven McGann

Of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor Minister Counselor (just promoted), to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati. Mr. McGann has been in the Foreign Service for 29 years.

Ms. Carol Ann Rodley

Of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Cambodia. Ms. Rodley, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, currently serves as a Faculty Advisor at the Foreign Service Institute. Prior to this, she served as Counselor for Political Military Affairs at the United States Embassy in Afghanistan. Earlier in her career she served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. Ms. Rodley received her bachelor's degree from Smith College. Ms. Rodley has been in the Foreign Service for 28 years.

Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008

Time: 9:00 A.M.

Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Presiding: Senator Nelson

Mr. Brian H. Hook

Of Iowa, to be Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs). Mr. Hook currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organizational Affairs. Prior to this, he served as Counselor to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Earlier in his career, he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy, Office of the Chief of Staff, at the White House. Mr. Hook received his bachelor's degree from the University of St. Thomas, his master's degree from Boston College and his JD from the University of Iowa.

Mr. Gregori Lebedev

Of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform with the Rank of Ambassador and Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform. Mr. Lebedev currently serves as Senior Advisor at Adelphi Capital, LLC. Prior to this, Mr. Lebedev served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Chemistry Council. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President for International Policy and National Security at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Lebedev received his bachelor's degree and JD from the University of South Dakota.

Mr. Matthew A. Reynolds

Of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs). Mr. Reynolds currently serves as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the Department of State. Prior to this, he served as Acting Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the Department of State. Earlier in his career, he served as Staff Director of the Committee on Rules in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Reynolds received his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University.

U.S. Embassy La Paz on Authorized Departure Now

The Department of State has recently authorized the departure of non-emergency personnel and all family members of U.S. Embassy personnel in Bolivia and suggests all U.S. citizens defer non-essential travel to Bolivia. U.S. citizens currently in Bolivia were encouraged to depart and those who chose to remain in country were advised to be vigilant, to monitor local media, and review their security situation on a regular basis.

With two U.S. missions on authorized departure in a span of a week, a quick explanation on an in-house term here: "authorized departure" merely allows the Ambassador greater flexibility in determining which employees or groups of employees may depart, and avoids any negative connotation that might be attached to the use of the term “evacuation.” Once the Under Secretary of State for Management (“M”) approves the evacuation status for post—either authorized or ordered—the 180-day clock “begins ticking” (by law, an evacuation cannot last longer than 180 days).

Peace Corps has now temporarily suspended its program in Bolivia and Peace Corps volunteers have left the country.

The State Department reports: "Over the course of the past weeks, opposition to the Central government’s policies by five of the nine departments (Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, Chuquisaca and Tarija) has turned increasingly violent. Hunger strikes, marches and road blocks that were initially peaceful have become violent as pro-government and opposition forces attempt to consolidate or impede control of government buildings and strategic facilities, such as the gas and oil pipelines. To date, more than a dozen persons have died and over 100 persons have been seriously injured. Police and military police have lost control of the situation in some areas and cities of those departments, and the road blocks and other measures taken by the opposition are making gas, diesel and other essential items unavailable. No one can, with any degree of confidence, predict what may happen in the near future."

Read more about the U.S. Embassy La Paz here, and the current Travel Warning here. The Bolivian melt-down continues.

The Embassy did resume full consular operation yesterday including visa services but pointed out that the potential for last minute changes is there.

Our safe travel wishes to friends returning home from Bolivia and Yemen. To all our friends left in La Paz and Sana'a, take care and stay safe.

The State Department's Sammies Recipients

2008 Federal Employee of the Year

USAID’s Richard Greene is this year's Federal Employee of the Year. He is the Director of the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition at the Bureau of Global Health at the United States Agency for International Development in Washington, D.C. Mr. Greene designed and launched the President’s Malaria Initiative, which has provided potentially life-saving services to more than 25 million vulnerable people.

An excerpt from the Sammies award narrative says that "Malaria claims the lives of 1 million people each year. Eighty percent of these deaths are children under five, and 80 percent are in Sub-Saharan Africa. What makes these losses even more tragic is the fact that malaria is both preventable and treatable. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Richard Greene is the day-to-day manager of an unprecedented government effort to fight this deadly disease. And it’s succeeding. Within its first two years, this effort provided services to 25 million children and pregnant women, and these services are having the ultimate impact: they are saving lives.

Greene’s dedication and leadership were critical to the program’s early success. He led the day-to-day implementation of the plan, and is credited with mobilizing programs and helping to launch services in record time while tailoring different approaches to fit the needs of each individual country. He has led his own team from USAID, coordinating their efforts with staff at CDC as well as government officials in host countries and multinational institutions.

Greene’s work on the PMI is the pinnacle of a life spent in service to others around the globe. He began his career as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Ivory Coast in 1978. After taking a job with USAID in 1984, he spent 15 consecutive years overseas in places ranging from Sudan to Cameroon to Bangladesh. He eventually settled in as the head of USAID’s Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition in the Bureau for Global Health, and he has put the agency on the cutting edge of addressing key global health issues."

The Service to America Medals are presented annually by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service to celebrate excellence in our federal civil service. To read more about the 2008 Sammies and previous recipients click here.

2008 National Security and International Affairs Medal Recipient

Mary Katherine Friedrich is the Special Advisor to the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs at the Department of State. She is rewarded for her leadership in the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, a major public/private effort to enhance the economic, social and political status of Afghan women.

An excerpt from the Sammies award narrative states that: "Afghanistan has made great progress on the path to becoming a free and democratic society since its liberation from Taliban rule in 2002. Few areas have seen greater improvement than the conditions of women, and few people outside of Afghanistan have done more to drive these positive changes than Kate Friedrich. As the head of day-to-day operations for the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she is empowering Afghan women to build better lives and engaging powerful partners to support the efforts of these courageous women.

Friedrich is known as “the pillar of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council,” a public-private partnership launched in 2002 by President George W. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which was designed to help mobilize public and private resources to assist Afghan women in regaining economic, social and political status. Friedrich has managed every aspect of the Council, from fundraising to overseas travel logistics to the coordination of the various public- and private-sector players. She has made countless trips to Afghanistan where her diplomatic skills are described as “formidable” by her peers. Friedrich’s creativity and ability to get things done under difficult circumstances have been remarkable throughout the development and implementation of the Council and its projects, which today total more than $70 million in programming.

With Friedrich’s persistence, the Council has been able to improve the prospects for countless Afghan women in need. She launched a micro-finance program with Daimler Chrysler, which began with three female enrollees. One year later, the number of women participating increased to 80. Today, the program has served more than 30,000 Afghan women. With support from the Council, Time Warner and USAID, women’s resource centers have been opened and equipped throughout Afghanistan, funded by more than $3.5 million for training in literacy, small business administration and management of nongovernmental organizations. A one-time training program for Afghan women entrepreneurs at Thunderbird University has grown into an annual course, graduating women in management skills and partnering them with American mentors. A project by Public Broadcasting Service to train Afghan women journalists led to the filming of the award-winning documentary “Afghanistan Unveiled.” And, with assistance from USAID, a Women’s Teacher Training Institute was opened at Kabul University."

The Service to America Medals are presented annually by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service to celebrate excellence in our federal civil service. To read more about the 2008 Sammies and previous recipients click here.

Diplomatic Snub Over

It looks like Honduras' diplomatic snub concluded last week. After a one-week delay to show its support for Bolivia, Deputy Foreign Minister Eduardo Rosales said Honduras would formally receive the credentials of the career diplomat Hugo Llorens on Friday (September 16). AP reports that Ambassador Llorens told reporters after meeting with Rosales on Tuesday that "relations between the U.S. and Honduras are excellent." He said he looks forward to a face-to-face meeting with President Zelaya.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Philip Goldberg, most recently the President's personal representative to Bolivia is now back in Washington and has recently given an interview to Mac Margolis of Newsweek. Below is a brief excerpt of the interview. You can read the entire piece here.

Newsweek: There's been a lot of media on your expulsion from Bolivia. What was the official reason and how did it happen?
Ambassador Goldberg: I was in a meeting [on Sept. 10] with the Bolivian foreign minister. I had gone to see him after receiving a call from the Bolivian government informing me that our D.E.A [drug enforcement agency] personnel had to leave immediately from the Chapare region, where president Evo Morales is also the president of the coca growers federation. During that conversation, Morales called the minister's cell phone to say that he had just announced—at a public event, not through the normal diplomatic channels—that he was declaring me persona non grata. The official notification arrived the following day.

Newsweek: The State Department talks about pursuing a positive agenda in the region. Has that agenda been damaged?
Ambassador Goldberg: In Bolivia, certainly. Our main activities in the country are assistance programs, which have been demonized in many ways. They've targeted our alternative development programs in the Chapare region, where coca (the raw material of cocaine] is grown. They decided to virtually expel DEA without any kind of explanation. These are not cooperative gestures.

Newsweek: I see you have been described as the former ambassador to Bolivia. Is this final or do you hope to go back to La Paz?
Ambassador Goldberg: I'm not going back. I am the former ambassador to Bolivia.

Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqis: Bag with Holes

Section 1244 of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act (Kennedy Bill, scroll down to Title XII, Subtitle C: Iraq and Refugee Crisis), signed into law on January 28, 2008, authorized 5,000 special immigrant visas (SIVs) for U.S. Government Iraqi employees and contractors each year for the next five years. In addition, in a unique development for U.S. visa programs, the legislation also authorized refugee resettlement benefits to Iraqis and their families who are granted (SIV) status. This SIV program is intended to reward and protect those men and women who put themselves and their families at great personal risk by assisting the U.S. Government in Iraq and Afghanistan as interpreters and translators.

Iraqis and their families who worked with or on behalf of the U.S. Government for a period of at least 12 months on or after March 20, 2003, are eligible for SIVs if they can document that (1) they provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. Government and (2) they have experienced or are experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a result of their U.S. Government employment. According to Embassy Baghdad officials, there is no central repository or database that contains the names of the thousands of Iraqis that have been employed on behalf of the U.S. Government since March 2003. Embassy officials said they possess documentation for Iraqis that served with U.S. Government agencies that work at the Embassy, regional embassy offices, and the 25 provincial reconstruction team sites. However, verifying employment for those Iraqis who worked for military units that rotated out or contractors that no longer operate in Iraq will be difficult.

On September 5, Walter Pincus writing for the Washington Post wrote about the possibility of fraud and abuse under the Iraqi Visa Law citing an unreleased OIG report. Today, after some digging I discovered that the cited report dated July 2008 (PDF file) has been posted online. The report which I presumed was publicly released within the last couple of weeks came from the Middle East Regional Office of the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of State.

I have written previously about the Iraqi refugee problems here and have been supportive of the work done by Kirk Johnson and TLP. I still think that it is our moral responsibility to save, if you will, the Iraqis who have put themselves in danger by helping us in Iraq. It is not a question of whether one supports or opposed this war. We don't leave our friends behind.

But the recent OIG report cited some aspects of the SIV program that I find troubling, more troubling especially with the expanded SIVs that would authorize a total of 25,000 SIVs in the next five years. My comments follow the OIG text.

The general or flag officer recommendation letters are central to establishing petition and SIV entitlement and serve as sole USCIS qualifier. The OIG report states that “many of the recommendation letters from the military contained exactly the same language and format, and thus it appears the letters were nonspecific pro forma documents endorsing petition submissions from military subordinates in the general or flag officer’s chain of command.”

– I personally believe that we’re giving these folks a new life in the United States, plus resettlement benefits, the least that our general or flag officers can do is provide specific reasons, not pro-forma language of endorsement. Any State Department officer who has ever written a visa referral, even for those temporary visitor’s visa knew that he/she is held accountable for such referrals, why lower the bar on this one? If the general or flag officer's recommendation is the sole qualifier under this new law, does it also mean that the U.S. military has total responsibility for vetting the applicants they are recommending under this program - including security and background checks?

The OIG team’s file examination indicated that USCIS adjudicators generally did not look beyond the written recommendation to determine the applicant’s official duties and if they qualified under the program.

– Oh la, la! Okay, I know that USCIS is a pretty dysfunctional entity but if it’s not part of their jobs to ensure that the applicants are qualified under the program before they approve it, then heck, whose job is it? If one suicide bomber slips into this crack, I’m sure we can drag State, Defense, Homeland Security and USCIS into a 9/11 kind of commission and see where the buck actually stops, but then it would be just like all other commissions created after the fact.

Consular officers are required to accept USCIS-approved petitions as prima facie evidence of entitlement to SIV status unless they believed that USCIS adjudicators did not have the benefit of facts that surfaced during the interview. The adjudicating officers were not given the authority to question the flag officer or general’s recommendation of the applicant unless there appears to be fraud.

– Why the heck not? The OIG team learned of several instances (and observed one interview) where the applicant proceeded through the entire SIV process, up to the consular officer interview point, before it became clear the person could not speak English and would need the assistance of an Arabic language interpreter to complete the interview. If a person is applying for an SIV based on his/her qualifications as a US translator or interpreter for the military, he/she could not speak a hoot of English, and a flag officer has written a recommendation - wouldn't it make sense for the adjudicating officer to have the authority to question that flag officer's recommendation?

The OIG team’s analysis of the case files revealed the bulk of petitions received extremely expeditious adjudication by DHS and review by the Department. For example, the average number of workdays required to examine Iraqi SIVs were eight days for USCIS review, 40 days at the National Visa Center, and 20 days at consular offices for an overall average time of nine weeks. (By comparison, processing immigrant visa applications for immediate relatives of American citizens – the easiest and quickest visa to process – takes on average four to six months.).

- Whose ass did we light a fire on this one? Eight days for a USCIS review? That's absolutely unheard of! I'm sure naturalization applicants who had to go to court to get their cases moved in the pipeline would have a lot to say about this.

SIV interpreter/translator visa recipients who indicated they plan to leave their families in Iraq or plan to return to their former jobs in Iraq as soon as they establish legal permanent resident status in the United States. The team is aware that many of the Iraqi interpreters and translators who receive SIVs and seek to return to Iraq would provide a valuable service to the U.S. Government. The team attended a short ceremony at Embassy Baghdad in February when the first SIVs were issued in-country and heard Ambassador Crocker encourage the recipient Iraqi visa-holders who had expressed an interest to return to work at the Embassy to do so. Nonetheless, there are a number of issues and equities to be carefully considered, including the payment of resettlement benefits and the targeting of limited visas slots to those most in need of protection and resettlement. (The OIG team also questions whether an applicant under the Section 1244 program can claim to face a serious threat when they are planning to return to Iraq immediately after establishing legal permanent resident status.)

– Yay! Wouldn’t we consider this double dipping? An SIV recipient could technically be in New York on leave from his/her work in Baghdad, receive resettlement benefits, return to Iraq and continue to receive employment salary and benefits from Uncle Sam.

Based upon conversations with their Iraqi staff, Embassy Baghdad and USAID officials said they anticipate the Kennedy Iraqi SIV program will result in the departure of the majority, if not all, their LE staff. These officials also said they expect the new program will serve as a magnet for new LE staff hires; fulfilling a one-year work requirement to qualify for a special immigrant visa. The officials voiced concern over a ‘revolving door’ staffing situation and the deleterious effect it will have on productivity, including the time required for recruiting and training new staff.

– I have written about this conundrum briefly here. But why is the one-year requirement the bar? Is that reflective of the extremely short life span for Iraqis under the current environment in Iraq? Hasn’t the surge succeeded? I have a good reason for nitpicking on the one-year work requirement under this law. Locally employed staff (LES) in the rest of our embassies and consulates abroad are allowed to apply for special immigrant visas only for outstanding performance or for heroic circumstances after working for Uncle Sam for at least 15 years! At least 15 years of loyal and outstanding service is the bar for locally employed staff outside Iraq. And sometimes, those applications even get sent back for additional documentations. Is Congress actually saying that a year in the war zone is equivalent to 15 years of faithful service to the United States elsewhere?

The OIG team also identified the following cases of concern: Former Saddam-era military personnel, including Republican Guard offi cers, a chemical warfare specialist, a former fighter pilot who flew against U.S. military forces, and a commander of the national air defense center. (During the course of our file review, consular officers sought advisory opinions regarding these applications from the Department.)

In the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) comments appended to the OIG report, CA emphasized that the consular officer has a responsibility to review, but no authority to re-adjudicate, an approved petition. It added that: "The decisions to approve the former Saddam-era military officials whose cases were cited might have been questionable; however, those questions are properly addressed to the agency charged with making the recommendation and initial background check of the applicant, not to other agencies that give appropriate deference and credit to those processes (DS: somebody explain this to me in simple English, please) . If a consular officer is satisfied the special immigrant classification criteria are met and no visa ineligibilities are found (and there is no visa ineligibility related to Saddam-era military service per se), there would have been no basis for the consular officer to return any of their petitions unless the officer had sufficient evidence" [that approval of the petition was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means].

For some reason all these made me think of Secretary Powell's "you break it, you own it" rule.

A footnote in the report indicates that the Bureau of Consular Affairs retains approximately $45 per individual filing fee and the remaining $355 is deposited in the U.S. Treasury’s general fund. Since these applicants won't be charged these fees, processing 5,000 SIV cases (with three individuals per case) will cost the Bureau of Consular Affairs approximately $675,000 in lost revenue per year and the U.S. Treasury more than $5 million per year. In addition, it also requires additional staff and office space to handle the additional workload in Iraq and several other consular sections in the region.

But what the heck - $25 million in five years is just change when you look at this whole $3 trillion escapade. And still counting - ka-ching!!

U.S. Embassy Sana'a on Authorized Departure

Following the September 17 terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, the Department of State has authorized the departure of non-essential American personnel and dependents for a period of 30 days, which may be extended, depending on circumstances. I've lost count how many times this post has been on authorized departure in the last few years alone.

U.S. Embassy employees have also been advised to exercise caution when choosing restaurants, hotels or visiting tourist areas in Sana'a in order to avoid large gatherings of foreigners and expatriates. In addition, unofficial travel outside of the capital city has been curtailed at this time.

Below is a brief clip on the aftermath of the terrorist attack.

Today, three days later, another bombing, this time in Islamabad. Here are two links to the attack that is still breaking news. Police say a suicide bomber has driven an explosives-laden vehicle into Islamabad's Marriott Hotel. At least 40 people are reported to have been killed and 100 more wounded, as the hotel was packed for breaking fast during Ramadan. One of the reports indicated that some State Department people who were having dinner at the hotel were wounded but no names were provided.

AlJazeera in YouTube

AP CNN in YouTube

Honduras' Zelaya "Skirting" the Fray

This is breaking news from Prensa Latina. A few minutes ago the Latin American News Agency reports that Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has “adjourned the ceremony to present Hugo Llorens' credentials as US ambassador to Honduras, expressing his solidarity with Bolivia and Venezuela.” It further reports that the ceremony was scheduled for Friday afternoon but Zelaya tasked his Foreign Minister Edmundo Orellana to notify the US Embassy that he would not receive Llorens' credentials until further notice.

The US Embassy Tegucigalpa’s website indicates that Ambassador Llorens was scheduled to arrive in Tegucigalpa today, September 12 but did not indicate when he was scheduled to present his credentials. The “until further notice” part of the report does not mean the new ambassador is being kick out too, it just means that he’s being left to stew in his office, unable to meet anyone because he has not been accredited officially by the host government. He won’t be able to do his job until that formality is done.

I wonder how long this postponement is going to last. Perhaps just long enough to satisfy regional camaraderie without disrupting bilateral relations with the U.S? Hmmn. It’s a snub and a half poke for sure, perhaps also as “soft” payback for our banning of Honduran melons earlier this year? I believe that ban went on for almost six months affecting the largest melon farmer who has reportedly 5,000 employees. Or it could last longer depending on how this trilateral diplomatic row is looking up tomorrow. But it certainly can’t go on indefinitely.

Ambassador Hugo Llorens who came to the United States as a 7 year old Cuban refugee 46 years ago is a career member of the Foreign Service with 27 years experience, primarily in the Latin American region. He most recently served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Spain. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Argentina. Earlier in his career, he also served as the National Security Director for Andean Affairs at the National Security Council. Ambassador Llorens received his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University and his master's degrees from the University of Kent at Canterbury and the National War College.

In talking about his background during the Senate confirmation hearing (PDF file), he said: “We arrived with a suitcase in hand and a buffalo nickel in our pocket, but knew we were richly blessed by America’s freedoms. We worked hard and had an unquenchable faith in America as the land where dreams come true.”

Also at this hearing, he promised to “support Honduran efforts to take full advantage of the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s compact signed in 2005 that provides $215 million for building roads, as well as promoting rural development.” He also indicated that he will “seek to deepen the two-way trade and investment flows derived from the CAFTA-DR.”

I must add that we have a large USAID and Peace Corps presence in Honduras, a large overseas American community and over 50,000 American citizens visiting the country each year.

Can't these guys space this up a bit? I got to get some sleep. I won't be shocked if there's another surprise when I get up in the morning.

Hugo the Gladiator Also Wants Attention

The first thing that caught my eyes this morning was news of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela ordering the US ambassador Patrick Duddy to leave Caracas within 72 hours. It would be interesting to know if the the foreign ministry's official notice would be as colorful as their president's public rhetoric.

The darn thing is - he's kicking Ambassador Duddy out of Venezuela and the guy is not even in country! I just hate it that folks don't know how to properly expel diplomats anymore. Excuse me, I have to say something loud to his ears here :: Hugo, dear, the next time you expel somebody, make sure the guy is in town so you can publicly drive him out of town. Because that's what gives flavor to this exercise, you twit! And please - listen to your professional diplomats in the ministry, they know how these things are done:: Ok, done with the loud part.

* * *

Chávez is alleging an American-sponsored coup plot by his military officers but elsewhere has explained his action as taken in solidarity with Evo Knievel's moves in Bolivia. And oh yes, he never did like Ambassador Duddy's ties. I'm sure other reasons will be announced later based on polling numbers, stay tune.

What Hugo the Gladiator really wants is attention, big attention in the international arena. He waded into the puddle earlier this year with Ecuador and Colombia, and got miles of press. If Georgia and South Ossetia were not in the other side of the world, he would have jumped up and down on that too (he's hosting the Russians; he's catching up). I don't think he does his antics because his whole ambition in life is to be a pesky fly. I think the real reason has more to do with political self-preservation and expediency.

By taking away his people's attention from the real ball, he could be entertaining in the "man of the people" kind of way. His fiery rhetoric provides entertainment in the great Venezuelan coliseum of political theater. And who can blame him? Hugo the Gladiator is a great practitioner of the politics of detraction.

With municipal and regional elections coming soon in November, who wants to talk about the country's violent crimes and 30% inflation (the highest in Latin America). Or how about that suitcase with $800,000 discovered in Buenos Aires, allegedly a clandestine payment from Caracas to help Argentina's president, Cristina Kirchner, win an election last year? So, instead he talks about American sponsored coups, paper-kicks the American Ambassador out, delivers some fiery speeches against the "empire," and hope that he has provided enough fodder to get him by until after the next election.

What I have yet to figure out is whether he exported his Detraction Doctrine to our shores this year (moose, lipstick, pigs, stinky fish, blah, blah, blah) or if we are simply looking at a copycat.

Bolivian Melt-down

U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, had just been declared persona non grata by the Bolivian Government under Evo Morales. The ambassador, a career member of the Foreign Service has been in Bolivia since 2006. Being PNG'ed means he will be expelled out of the country probably within the next 48-72 hours but I won't be surprised if Evo Knievel will order him out of there by sundown tomorrow.

While the mainstream media has been pre-occupied with lipstick and pigs and stinky fish, and as Russia thumbs its nose on us with its military exercise with Venezuela in our neighborhood, another melt-down is threatening to happen, this time in the western hemisphere.

Apparently armed clashes and protests against the Morales Government has been steadily escalating. Some people have reportedly died. So on Wednesday, Evo Knievel blamed it all on who else but Ambassador Goldberg. "The ambassador of the United States is conspiring against democracy and wants Bolivia to break apart," said Morales, who took power in 2006. Huh?

It seems to me that Old Bob in Zimbabwe had used an excuse along that line when things got really hot there earlier this year. Must be part of the playbook they all learned somewhere. Scare folks with the big, bad wolf. What good is a super power if you can't blame it for everything that ails you, hmmn? I'd like to know who wrote that playbook because frankly, it's getting old.

Bloomberg reports: "A deterioration of ties with South America's poorest country may weaken U.S. support for renewing trade preferences for Bolivian imports. It could also undermine U.S. efforts to reduce cultivation of coca, the main ingredient in cocaine. Bolivia is the world's third-biggest producer of coca, after Colombia and Peru." Now, that last part is not good.

The ball is in Foggy Bottom's court now. There should be some fireworks, remember Belarus? My sympathy to Ambassador Goldberg. Do doubt it's a bummer - not just getting yanked out of work but being unable to say proper goodbyes to friends in La Paz (not to mention 7200 lbs of household stuff that must be packed). But this is part of diplomatic life; things will go on at the embassy and his number 2 person will quickly assume chief of mission responsibilities.

His official bio indicates that he served from January-June 2001 as acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. He came to that position after having been a senior member of the State Department team handling the transition from the Clinton to Bush Administrations.

Mr. Goldberg also served as Special Assistant (1996-1998) and then Executive Assistant (1998-2000) to the Deputy Secretary of State. From 1994-1996 Mr. Goldberg was the Department’s Bosnia Desk Officer and a Special Assistant to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. In the latter capacity, he was a member of the American negotiating team in the lead-up to the Dayton Peace Conference and Chief of Staff for the American Delegation at Dayton.

Mr. Goldberg has served overseas as a consular and political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, and political-economic officer in Pretoria, South Africa.

Before joining the Foreign Service, Mr. Goldberg worked for several years as a liaison officer between the City of New York and the United Nations and consular community. Mr. Goldberg is a native of Boston, Massachusetts, and a graduate of Boston University.

No Blacks in the 7th Floor?

This is a Secretary of State that does not make waves when she speaks (unlike her counterpart, my favorite SecDef, across the river). So I was caught by surprise when on September 8, her "Remarks at the Annual Conference of the White House Initiative on National Historically Black Colleges and Universities " (whew! that's a mouthful!), caught on in the blogosphere. Below is an excerpt of that speech which caused the buzz. She said (ta-da ~~):

"Still, I hope that this will expand. It is our hope that more historically black colleges and universities and their students and faculty will take advantage of this opportunity because it’s good for the students, but it’s good for America, too. Because when I go around the world, I want very much to see black Americans involved in the development and the promotion of our foreign policy. I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country. (Applause.)

I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State and, as a matter of fact, I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me, and that’s just not acceptable. And so -- (Applause.)"

Now, you see why this would cause a buzz? A whole day of meetings and rarely seeing any other black person? So that made me curious. Can that really be so? How many blacks or for that matter minorities, are there in the State Department? I had to do some dumpster diving elsewhere; they certainly don't make it easy to find any of this information in the state.gov website.

In 1998, OPM reported a total of 15,104 State Department employees of which 22.7% were minorities. The minorities were broken down into Black at 2,258 (14.9%), Hispanic at 591 (3.9%), Asian at 515 (3.4%) and American Indian at 65 employees or 0.4%.

The more recent data I could find is dated 2004 and was published in the 2005 Factbook. It indicated that the Department had 23,977 total employees of which 26% were minorities. The breakdown is as follows: Black: 3,633 (15.2%), Hispanic: 1,270 (5.3%), Asian:1,236 (5.2%) and American Indian whose number remained at 0.4%.

I don't know how much this numbers have moved in the last three years, but if my arithmetic is right, there were 1,375 more black employees in the agency when the Secretary came to office. I can't imagine not seeing any one of those employees in the course of the day. The only reasons I could think of that would make that statement possible is if 1) they had forward deployed all 3,633 African American employees to overseas locations in 2005 when she came into office or, 2) they have built a bubble in the 7th floor and she parachuted in (and out?) of Foggy Bottom in the last four years. This is giving me a headache, people. Are there secret pipes and tunnels around there that I don't know about?

Seriously, the gains have been slow, but it's there; she almost sounded as if nothing has been done prior to her tenure. A lot more needs to be done, of course, I have no quarrel with that. Among the executive departments, the Department of Housing and Urban and Housing Development was the most diverse with 49.6% of its employees consisting of minorities. This was followed by the Department of Education at 45% and HHS at 44.2%. The top bottom when it comes to its share of minority employees are: Agriculture at 21.6%, Transportation at 21.8% and Energy at 22.8%. The State Department comes at the lower tier at 26%. Again, I should note that these numbers were published in 2005 and these departments records may have improved since then.

But - while digging around, I found this gem from the GAO about diversity management. Of the experts in the field of diversity management they spoke with or whose publications they reviewed to identify leading diversity management practices, a majority cited the following leading practices:

• Top leadership commitment
—a vision of diversity demonstrated and communicated throughout an organization by top-level management

• Diversity as part of an organization’s strategic plan
—a diversity strategy and plan that are developed and aligned with the organization’s strategic plan.

• Diversity linked to performance
—the understanding that a more diverse and inclusive work environment can yield greater productivity and help improve individual and organizational performance.

• Measurement
—a set of quantitative and qualitative measures of the impact of various aspects of an overall diversity program.

• Accountability
—the means to ensure that leaders are responsible for diversity by linking their performance assessment and compensation to the progress of diversity initiatives.

• Succession planning
—an ongoing, strategic process for identifying and developing a diverse pool of talent for an organization’s potential future leaders.

• Recruitment
—the process of attracting a supply of qualified, diverse applicants for employment.

• Employee involvement
—the contribution of employees in driving diversity throughout an organization.

• Diversity training
—organizational efforts to inform and educate management and staff about diversity.

Perhaps one more list for 67th?