Consul-At-Arms II: Scotland

Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

re: "Your Dumb Government at Work"

Andrew Exum at Abu Muquwama discussed another military absurdity.

Money quote(s):

"(H)e had cancelled a presentation he was scheduled to give at the British International Studies Association conference in Edinburgh, Scotland because EUCOM regulations stipulate he must first ... wait for it ... go through SERE training before traveling to western Europe."

CAA has been to Edinburgh himself, after much personal preparation.

Said preparation did not include any survival, evasion, resistance, or escape components.

"Although the SERE training in question is not the hellish full two-week course but rather the one-day course, this is absurd nonetheless. Just yesterday, I met with a collection of junior U.S. Army officers, and we all agreed that U.S. military personnel -- and officers in particular, because they are often de facto ambassadors for the United States -- were better at their jobs if they had traveled widely or, even better, had lived abroad. But it can be a nightmare for U.S. military personnel to travel internationally, such have we elevated force protection to ridiculous importance."

The purpose, in any organization, of a manager or higher executive functionary is to:

a.) Set policy; and

b.) Make exceptions to policy as needed.

Someone is failing at one, or both, of these functions.

"(I)f we are willing to send young men and women to fight and die in Helmand Province, we should go out of our way to be accomodating when U.S. military personnel want to broaden their experiences by traveling to countries with which we are not at war." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

12/13

Friday, July 1, 2011

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?