re: "FOI, FCO and Emails"

Amb. Charles Crawford at Blogoir (" A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not. ") considered the problem of "official" emails.

Money quote(s):

"When the FCO brought in email communication first on a clunky internal system then on a more familiar Windows-based system, the use of emails of course exploded. And the FCO had to think about what to do with them all.

Various categories of email were devised, reflecting security classifications for documents set up under utterly different conditions. So for a while until a network-wide Confidential system was rolled out to the huge majority of posts (over several years) the 'Unclassified' parts of the network could send and receive only Unclassified emails, leaving them largely excluded from the day to day email chatter at HQ in London. This was part of Craig Murray's problem in Uzbekistan - he did not have a CONF system and so substantively was isolated from much of the policy debate in the FCO. This frustrating situation led to him to start using the 'telegram' level for communicating his thoughts to a vast bemused Whitehall audience, and it all went downhill from there."

3/3

re: "Harbinger"

Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom ("because not just anybody can summarize the news.") examined the London rioters.

Money quote(s):

"Products of the long march.

Europe wants to walk it back, and the riots are in part a product of that desperation. Too many in the US, alternately, seems to think this way lies Utopia — and our government is more than happy to join them in their fantasies by continually kicking the can down the road, pretending that necessary reforms can always be put off indefinitely.

Worse still? The people in the US haven’t had their guns taken way just yet…"

The looming impeachment of AG Holder may delay that last part a bit more.

8/10

re: "If We Let the Government Take Our Guns, We’ll Have to Run and Hide Like Londoners"

AWR Hawkins at Big Government relayed a (true) story that reminded me that America is where "the Rights of Englishmen" are still preserved.

Money quote(s):

"Fast forward to 2011 and look at the riots taking place in London, England: the city of unarmed people where crime was long ago vanished via the confiscation and destruction of handguns.

Now that the criminals are confident the citizenry is thoroughly unarmed, they’re going into homes and businesses whenever they wish, taking whatever they want once they go in, and walking (or running) away with a smile on their face.

(Oops! I guess someone forgot to tell the criminals that guns were the cause of criminality.)

Just consider an episode from London’s acclaimed restaurant – The Ledbury – from a few nights ago. Patrons talked of being attacked by rioters with “weapons,” who rushed into the restaurant and demanded customers “hand over wedding rings, cell phones and wallets.”

What “weapons” did the rioters use? Baseball bats of course. (That’s right – an entire restaurant full of people was controlled by kids with clubs.)

To be fair, the patrons said the restaurant staff fought back, with “rolling pins, fry baskets” and other “kitchen tools.”

Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and third President of the United States, once wrote of how denying a person their natural rights is akin to denying them part of their humanity. "

Just to fill in a blank, the right of self-defense is one of those "natural rights" to which former-Pres. Jefferson was referring.

"It is embarrassing to read of the abasement these Londoners have faced as a result of being disarmed. In fact, it is, as Jefferson would say, an insult to their humanity.

Where I live, if a gang of rioters comes busting through the restaurant doors swinging baseball bats at patrons, I doubt I’ll be alone in pulling my .45 and taking care of business. And the very act of doing that, though not hoped for, will prove a reminder that my life is too valuable a thing to be sacrificed on the altar of progressive policies and academic rhetoric."

As a matter of fashion, CAA doesn't (generally) bear arms when not in uniform. But it's not like it's something he's unprepared to do, at need. Speaking of fashion, one's holster and gunbelt (or shoulder rig) should match one's shoes, watchband, and belt. Just sayin.'

8/10

re: "Ministry of Irony: President Obama Stiff Brits' Green Fines"

Howie at The Jawa Report ("Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.") quotes a news story citing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

By the way, Pres. Obama is correct in this instance.

re: "Diplomats: Loyal to Whom/What?"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") self-quotes from DIPLOMAT magazine.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Libya case has given rise to a spectacular number of high profile diplomatic changes of side, with one Libyan ambassador after another announcing support for the opposition forces struggling to bring down the Gaddafi regime.

Whereas host governments might or might not commend the high principle shown by such a defection, unwelcome problems quickly arise if some diplomats in an embassy switch sides but others don’t. Who is running the local Libyan embassy for the purpose of carrying on routine diplomatic business? Who gets invited to which functions? Does a Libyan diplomat who has announced a switch of loyalty still get diplomatic immunity? What about the official embassy car?

What if the uprising fails and Gaddafi wins – must we throw these people out of the Libyan Embassy?"

From a perspective of diplomatic visa issuance (and cancellation), what happens when a Libyan diplomat defects from his embassy, thus invalidating his legal reason for being present in your country?

"Could a worst-case scenario unfold, namely a de facto or even de jure partition of Libya, with unfathomable complications for Libya’s diplomatic representation at the UN and around the world? In short, the Libya drama exemplifies the greatest challenge to any diplomat’s loyalty to his/her country: what to do if the country slumps into civil war or even disappears altogether?

This problem was faced in acute form by Soviet diplomats when the USSR disintegrated in 1991. They had represented one massive state – what to do when the 15 former Soviet republics had each become a new country? For most diplomats born and raised in Russia, the choice was simple: stick with the new Russian Foreign Ministry.

But those diplomats born and raised elsewhere in the Soviet Union had a painful choice. Better to stay on in powerful Moscow as a Russian diplomat, or return to one’s home republic and hope for a role in the nascent and disorganised Foreign Ministry there? If the latter, would they be trusted by the new leadership?

Many chose to stick with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Thus in 1995 when Russia and Ukraine were haggling over the fate of the Black Sea Fleet, the negotiating team representing Russia included plenty of ethnic Ukrainian expert diplomats."

Which didn't work out so well for Ukraine.

He concludes with an excellent question.

"Could we see a tumultuous test of British diplomatic loyalties in the coming years if Scotland holds a referendum and opts for independence? Recent SNP gains show the country may well be heading in this direction.

Will the FCO’s sizeable tartan army of Scottish diplomats vote to stay in London representing a reduced UK or will they go north en masse to help Scotland set up its new diplomatic service?

In either case, who will trust them?"

Are they trusted now?

A related question attaches to those European diplomats who leave their own service for the EU's External Action Service. Does anyone trust them now? Will anyone trust them afterwards?

re: "New Design for London Embassy"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") is willing to accept the risks of diplomatic service overseas, but doesn't counsel foolishness either.

Money quote(s):

"So much of the debate of "fortress embassies" has portrayed the issue as either-or. We can either keep our diplomats safe or we can have attractive, inviting embassies. And much of what I have seen has fallen on the side of "we are really being paranoid...we need to be more inviting." Sorry, but since I don't get a gun or bullet-proof vest, and since terrorists DO like to target diplomats overseas, I like safe embassies."

Too much of the criticism of our "fortress embassies" comes from those who will never work in them nor ever deploy overseas with the proverbial bullseye of U.S. government service emblazoned on their backs.

"(L)ike our soldiers, I know that serving my country is dangerous. And like them, I want to be able to control the amount of danger as much as possible."

re: "US to build most expensive "high risk" embassy ever costing $1,000,000,000"

Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades HQ takes the t0-be-expected cheap shots.

Money quote(s):

"There's some dangerous places in the world and it apparently costs a LOT to protect our devoted diplomatic corps in them."

Actually, some cities are places where everything costs a lot more than they do back home. One of those is London.

"Its going to be in the most vile, ungoverned, wanton violence infested, pestilence ridden, asshole of the universe nation on the planet where Americans are being ruthlessly gunned down and blown up with car bombs daily by the dozens."

Embassies in London can, and have, been the target of terrorist attacks in London, including embassy takeovers. Even TV show producers know this.

"The good news is -- it will have a real moat like all proper castles do! Presumably this would be a heated moat so it won't freeze and the Piranhas and Crocks don't get all lethargic and start slacking during the colder months."

Can TSB call them or what? He made this prediction last Tuesday: "(prediction: before construction is finished, DS will be blamed for requiring moats)"

Water barriers work just as good at stopping truck bombers as jersey (or texas) barriers do. And look nicer. Can't grow a lily pad on a bollard, after all.

Besides, the traditional denizen of an English moat isn't piranha or crocadile: it's pike.

&

"(H)ows about just building a huge poured concrete bunker with 10' thick blast proof walls or welded 12" battleship'esque armor plate? "

At last, a practical suggestion. But then some young x-wing jockey from the sticks would just lob a missile down a ventilation duct.

S-CM - Need to Know Advice Before and During Your Visit to America

From my archive of press clippings:

Sys-Con Media


Need to Know Advice Before and During Your Visit to America - New Visa Process for Australian and New Zealand Passport Holders


By PR Newswire


June 22, 2009 05:30 PM EDT

LONDON, June 22 /PRNewswire/ -- With the holiday season upon us, Cheapflights.com.au, the Australian site of the international travel online price comparison company, suggests that before visiting the USA it pays to check that you know the new visa rules before flying. Cheapflights also has some useful tips to help smooth your transit through domestic US airports once you are there.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Under the United States Visa Waiver Program (VWP), Australian and New Zealand citizens entering the US by air or sea have to apply online for the new American Department of Homeland Security's mandatory Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) - this is instead of a paper visa and allows you to stay for up to three months. However, if you want to stay longer, you will still need a Tourist B2 paper visa."

"The ESTA can be obtained by making an online application right up to your flight time but preferably no later than 72 hours before departure. Cheapflights suggest doing it much earlier as an ESTA is valid for two years and it's free! NB: You must have a machine-readable passport that has a digital photograph printed on the data page or integrated chip with information from the data page."

&

"If you are traveling to the US from Australia and do not hold a passport from a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country, you will need to apply for a paper Tourist Visa B2, which can take a while. Check with your local US Embassy's website for how to apply - you will have to request an appointment for a visa interview because walk-in interviews are not given. The http://www.usembassy.gov/ site provides details of US Embassies around the world."

re: "Bow? Wow!"

Former U.S. diplomat John Burgess at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") explains the significance, or lack thereof, of the bow.



Money quote(s):



"The conservative media and blogs have been having a field day parsing the bow that President Obama gave before Saudi King Abdullah in London last week. Some see it as a sign that he is submitting in fealty to Saudi Arabia. Others find ‘coded messages’ about how the US will submit to Islam. His act stirs up the canard that Obama is a ’secret Muslim’."


"The fact is that Obama made a mistake. It is US diplomatic usage, dating from the days in which American broke away from the crowns of Europe, that Americans do not bow (or curtsy, as the case may be) to royalty, no matter who the American, no matter who the royalty."

"It’s a custom; it’s a tradition; it’s a political statement. It is not a law, however."

&

"A ‘head bow’, inclining the head in the direction of the person being honored, is appropriate and is the norm in diplomacy. Obama over did it, perhaps, but he did not put the US in fealty to Saudi Arabia!"

re: "The Most Artistic Passport"

Robert at Expat Yank ("One American living in the south of England") seems to like his new passport.

Money quote(s):

"Praise is in order.

For it took exactly all of 16 days (including weekends and 2 days transit, round trip, special delivery in the UK post) for yours truly to send his soon to be expiring passport to the Embassy and receive the new one back on Friday. Totally unexpected, that level of efficency. A nod to the passport people in London and at the Department of State."

&

"(I)f you haven’t seen one yet, the new U.S. e-passport is practically a work of art. The front inside cover is embelished with the (presumably Francis Scott Key) handwritten lines of The Star Spangled Banner over an engraving of a view of Fort McHenry. The back inside cover has an engraving of a satellite view of the U.S. down on earth.

Between, we get a bald eagle over the opening lines of the Constitution, and visa stamp pages that include backgrounds of the Liberty Bell, the Great Plains, bison (before what look like the Tetons), a steamboat, cowboys, Mt Rushmore, and more, all headed with quotes from Daniel Webster (how many people today have never heard of Daniel Webster, but owing to the passport now will?), Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and even the Mohawk Thanksgiving Address, among others."

re: "Diplomatic Bloggers: No Blanket Ban but Better Guidelines Needed"

DS at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: outside looking in, sometimes, inside looking out; monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and elsewhere in the diplomatic universe, so you don't have to. ") continues her discussion of State's "social media" rules.

Money quote(s):

"As far as I know, there is no blanket ban on blogging by diplomats writing in their private capacity. But there may be soft and hard pressures exerted on employees or their family members not to blog by various characters in the bureaucracy. This is probably one of those many things in the FS that fall into the “it depends” category. This is probably one of those things in the FS that is having a hard time trying to catch up with the real world without a hard push (remember those Wang computers that you had to put up with until Colin Powell said 'nuff already?)."

Oh yes, I well remember the Wang computers that everyone was forced to use. There would, if you were lucky, be one PC on an office floor, which people could use, if they signed up for time slots.

"Logic dictates that if senior officials do not have time to clear materials written in your private capacity in Timor-Liste or in London, they absolutely won’t have time to clear your random thoughts and musings in a war zone. "

Ya think? Don't higher management have a lot more to do that this?

If you think they don't, you're wrong.

"Are we to understand that although these guidelines have been in the books forever -- that State will look the other way, as long as your blog is not controversial and remains obscure? (John Matel was controversial at some point when he wrote his To My Overwrought Colleagues, but he did not put State in a bad light), or as long as the New York Times has not come calling for that interview? Or could it simply be that State is trying to catch up with the times, but has not quite made up its mind on how to change the rules?"

CNN - Visitors to U.S. face refusal under new online entry system

CNN

Visitors to U.S. face refusal under new online entry system


January 12, 2009 -- Updated 1102 GMT (1902 HKT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- From today, travelers visiting the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) risk being detained at airports and sent home if they don't comply with new U.S. immigration rules.

Read the whole article here.

AFP - Absent fathers could lose passports under crackdown

AFP

Absent fathers could lose passports under crackdown


LONDON (AFP) — Fathers who refuse to pay child maintenance could be stripped of their drivers' licence and passport under plans to go before parliament on Tuesday to crackdown on "deadbeat dads".

Read the whole article here.