re: "Almost the Ultimate Carter Moment in Damascus."

Moe Lane (Diary) at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") cautioned administration appointees:

"(I)f Syrian ‘loyalists’ follow up today’s attack against the US Embassy in Damascus…

…by actually seizing the embassy? If that happens, start updating your resumes. And don’t bother with sending them along to Democratic House Members (and any Democratic Senator up for re-election in 2012): we’ll be throwing them out of office, too."

Recent history only provides one example of the "if" side of this statement, but the "then" segment justifies 100 percent confidence in the political consequences.

7/11

re: "Protests here, there and everywhere and the US Government shutdown looms large"

Domani Spero at DiploPundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe") has an extremely informative post about federal government shutdowns.

Money quote(s):

"The most recent one occurred in FY1996 for five days between November 13-19, 1995. The second one also in FY1996 was the longest in history, and lasted 21 days between December 15, 1995 - January 6, 1996.

Of course, as soon as the second government shutdown was lifted, the blizzard of 1996, a severe nor'easter arrived and paralyzed the entire East Coast with up to 4 feet of wind-driven snow. Remember that? A big mess all around, and not just the snow, most of it dumped on the GOP lawn."

I remember it well, working at the time as a government contractor. Since my contract remained funded, I continued working during the shutdown, but nearly all of my federal co-workers (I was working "on site" at a departmental headquarters in D.C.) weren't there. It was spooky.

To really enhance the fun, about 50 percent of my reserve battalion was being mobilized during that time period to deploy to Europe as part of Operation Joint Endeavor. Being snowed in (it took them most of a week for the snowplows to reach my apartment parking lot, and then an entire day for me to re-unentomb my car so I could get myself, uniforms, and gear to the reserve center that night) sucked.

"Potentially, all US embassies and consulates will also shutdown if the continuing funding resolution is not extended before Friday, March 4 at 11:59 pm. Since ambassadors are presidential appointees, they will presumably continue working. I suspect that most of the embassy staff will be sent home. Think you might volunteer your service for free to Uncle Sam? Think again. Not possible. "Unless otherwise authorized by law, an agency may not accept the voluntary services of an individual." (31 U.S.C. 1342). Read more here.

US missions will not be able to pay local bills for water, phone, electricity, sewer and other services for the chancery, and all USG properties. Hopefully, your management section already has an excellent working relationship with these service providers and none will cut off essential services to the embassy or embassy housing.

In 1995, all visa applications are walk-in. Today, a good number of consular sections have online appointment systems. Which means, visa appointments will have to be canceled and rescheduled if there is a shutdown. Consular sections may only be open for life and death emergencies. That means lost passport applications, reports of births abroad, adoption cases, notarials, etc. will all have to wait until the Federal government reopens.

Large scale evacuations of US embassy staff and US citizens in whatever is the next domino to fall -- would that be considered "essential?" Don't know if evacuees will be allowed government loans during the shutdown. Don't know what happens if you are on evacuation status in the safehaven destination or back in the US when the government shuts down. Best check with official folks to get answers before window closes for official business.

Members of Congress are exempt from the shutdown furloughs (and will continue to get their paychecks, of course). This means you might still see a CODEL visit in popular destinations like Kabul or Baghdad amidst a federal shutdown. Of course, there won't technically be embassy cars/drivers or control officers for those visits."

Control officers? Where have I heard that term before?

re: "Making Sense of Chaos "

Sean Osborne, Associate Director at Northeast Intelligence Network ("Investigating threats to our homeland") mixes good information with some obvious ideological axe-grinding.

Money quote(s)"

"(T)his administration’s blatant “ideologically motivated” incompetence and deliberate “strategic dementia” is leading the world down a path to an apocalypse which the Iranian Ayatollah and his sock puppet so fervently dream of. Indeed, all that will soon be left is for the Iranian’s to step in to fill the vacuum the Obama Administration is creating."

That's a little alarmist, at least in terms of Iran's ability (note, I don't say desire) to step up to anything.

"Unlike the Inept-in-Chief, his Ikhwan advisors and appointed incompetents in the U.S. State Department who have been attempting to micromanage the crisis in Egypt via remote control, there are other forces at work that have real boots on the ground in the former land of the Pharaohs."

Well, I suppose it's some progress that the author differentiates between the "appointed incompetents" at State from us career ones.

"When Obama & Company declared that the transition from Hosni Mubarak’s rule to whatever is supposed to come next had to begin “now” with Mubarak’s immediate resignation, they utterly failed to account for specific provisions of the Egyptian Constitution."

That, for me, echoed similar miscomprehensions about Honduras' constitution.

(Is it really too much to ask that States' country desk officers keep a translation of "their" country's constitution somewhere handy?)

JO - Retired politicians don't always make good envoys

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

Retired politicians don't always make good envoys

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

A certain prime minister of Jamaica, who shall be nameless, is reported to have said that it is not important who is appointed ambassador because he had a telephone.

Read the whole editorial here.

Snippet(s):

"Although this is patently absurd, it has become an axiom of an approach to foreign policy by succeeding governments since the 1970s. Most unfortunately, it has been practised with disastrous results in the capitals of some of the countries that are most important to Jamaica, namely Washington, DC; London; and Ottawa."

"This dumping policy is not received well in foreign capitals because the "host" country knows what is being passed off and is insulted. The fog that engulfed United States-Jamaica relations has not yet cleared in Washington, DC.

Ambassadorial postings cannot be a pension plan for retirees or for politicians with other infirmities such as health problems. Even undistinguished backbenchers have become ambassadors if they are willing to accept less attractive postings. We have seen some who acceded to the diplomatic life without any aptitude, and even when they do not perform they are retained or offered another prestigious posting.

Some of these appointees regard their positions as a reward for work already done and do not exert themselves, to the detriment of Jamaica. Their verbal incontinence is an embarrassment to their country and their sartorial eccentricities a source of derision among their countrymen in the Diaspora. These retirees have not even been aware of their shortcomings while "enjoying" the privileges. They conflate the ceremonial with the cerebral and confuse the deference given to the office with respect for their person.

They are disparaged in dispatches to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by their own staff who file demeaning reports critiquing their conduct and work ethic, disregard for proper procedure and an ignorance of protocol."

&

"We are looking to Prime Minister Bruce Golding to put a stop to these types of appointments and to refrain from rewarding or condoning failure with inappropriate appointments. One bad term does not deserve another. There must be some other form of pension or local sinecure for retired politicians. Jamaica will not be taken seriously or get on any country's foreign policy agenda if we do not have effective representations.

The persons appointed as ambassadors/high commissioners, especially in Washington, DC; London; Ottawa; and at the United Nations, must be suitably qualified persons who could include competent politicians but not those in need of a pension."

WT - EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments. Ambassadorships to be less political.

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments. Ambassadorships to be less political.

By Nicholas Kralev (Contact)

Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 10, 2009, updated 05:58 a.m., July 10, 2009

The White House, unaware of historic norms, had been on track to give more than the usual 30 percent of ambassadorial jobs to political appointees until objections from career diplomats forced it to reconsider, administration officials say.

Read the whole article here.

re: "Ambassadorial Appointments"

Guest contributer Hans N. Tuch posted at WhirledView ("A Look at World Politics & Most Everything Else") and summed this up nicely.

Money quote(s):

"The practice of giving ambassadorial appointments to non-professional people solely as a reward for their political contributions to the president's campaign is as stupid and potentially dangerous to the national interest as if the president were to appoint the contributor to a high command in the military."

Read the whole thing.

re: "Obama the Politics of Ambassadorial Appointments"

Charlie J. Brown at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of foreign policy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop culture") made a reasonable defense of the administration's ambassadorial appointments thus far.

Money quote(s):

"(S)ome of those appointed by the Obama Administration are foreign policy experts who have a long history of working on the countries and/or issues in question."

&

"The foreign service does an outstanding (and largely unheralded) job of representing U.S. interests overseas. Its members deserve not merely our respect but our admiration. That’s why the list of Obama ambassadorial picks includes a number of distinguished members of the foreign service.

The reality here is that AFSA, which represents the interests of the foreign service, is worried that the foreign service is not getting its traditional share of the pie. They said the same things eight years ago when Bush came to office and sixteen years ago when Clinton got elected. It’s a time-honored Washington ritual."

re: "Obama's Animated Ambassadors"

Tim Kelleher at Big Hollywood had the scoop on some upcoming ambassadorial appointments.

This truly is diplomacy at its most transformative.

Enjoy!

JG - Fond farewell for Panamanian ambassador

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

Fond farewell for Panamanian ambassador

Published: Sunday April 12, 2009

Perhaps counting down the days to his departure, Panamanian Ambassador Ricardo Moreno (left) hobnobs with Brazilian Ambassador Alexander Gueiros (right) and Luz Santamaria. - Photos by Peta-Gaye Clachar/Staff Photographer


You know that you've been a great friend and comrade when the people who know you jostle to throw you a party.



That's how Ambassador of Panama Ricardo Moreno must feel after some of his colleagues threw an informal farewell party for him on Thursday, April 2. Ambassador Moreno explained that because he was not a career diplomat (but rather a political appointee), his term ends when there's a change of government. A new president will be sworn in by July so he will have to leave his post. So, if it seems that this farewell is a little premature, it's because Dominican Republic Ambassador Filomena Navarro wanted to be the first to throw a farewell for her "best friend".

Read the whole article here.

re: "Where, oh where are the diplomats going to get a break?"

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.") reviewed recent ambassadorial appointments at plum posts.

Money quote(s):

"(P)robably no surprises in the names we’re hearing or that they have political connections with the Obama Administration or Hillary campaigns. It might come as a shock to you that these top diplomatic missions will have political appointees at their helm instead of career diplomats. But don’t be too shocked, this is so totally in line with the practice from both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past."

&

"(T)he "last-tier" embassies? Don't worry, they all go to career diplomats."

re: "Obama announces more appointments: State, CIA, Energy, Commerce"

Laura Rozen at FP's The Cable ("Reporting inside the foreign policy machine") has some political appointment news.

re: "The Bottleneck at State"

Thanks to John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 for the link.

re: "A first for freeman"

SoccerDad ("With something like a 10-60 record as coach of my children's soccer teams why do I do it? Because I'm Soccer Dad! ") evaluates the Freeman nomination.

Money quote(s):

"In the area of foreign policy there is a divide. On the one side there are the ideologues who can be identified as being conservative, Republican or pro-Israel and then there's everyone else. Since Freeman cannot be clearly identified as one of those three groups, he is, therefore, implicitly non-partisan and beyond suspicion. Never mind that an appointee who is as close to Israel as Freeman is to Saudi Arabia would get plenty of scrutiny. Chalk it up to an implicit "Israel lobby" bias."

"How good has the Saudi Arabian anti-terror program been? Well if one refers to their deprogramming techniques, the results of those efforts have been, shall we say, inconsistent."

&

"(T)he news broke that Freeman withdrew his name for consideration for the post as head of the NIC. Two observations: it took until the very end of the process for either the NYT or WaPo to cover this appointment. Why not? Also, the administration did not appear to fight very hard for Freeman. Again, why not?"

_____

Hat tip to The Glittering Eye.

re: "The Bottleneck at State"

Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") is keeping track of new appointments at State Dept.

Money quote(s):

"Inside the State Department, you can’t know who does what without a scorecard. Every position/bureau has a one- to three-letter abbreviation — even the Secretary, whose office is called “S” inside the building."

"(T)he other two Undersecretary Positions — Political Affairs and Management — they are both filled by career foreign service officers who were originally appointed by the Bush Administration. That’s normal — career FSOs serve specific terms (two, sometimes three years), even in senior positions (though they still serve at the pleasure of the President and still must be confirmed by the Senate)."

&

"The Administration needs to get its act together to resolve this, either by finding appropriate political appointees or naming talented FSOs to fill the slots."

re: "Regarding Chas Freeman"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") takes a much more balanced view of this appointment.

Money quote(s):

"Freeman, Bush 41's ambassador to Riyadh, has a deep understanding of the Middle East and the Saudis in particular. He has used that understanding to recycle a lot of petrodollars, both in the service of American geopolitical objectives -- that money killed a lot of Soviet soldiers back in the day -- and his private clients. Since regular readers know that I believe that businessmen who recycle petrodollars to American advantage are making an important contribution to the economic health of the country, it stands to reason that I think that Freeman's results are positive even if I do not agree with many of his publicly expressed opinions."

&

"If you read the righty critics of Freeman, particularly as they relate to China policy, they say that he is a sort of hyper realist in the sense that actual power is far more relevant to him than principles. I do not know that is true, but I do think Barack Obama ought to have at least one such person on his national security staff."

re: "Freeman of Arabia"

Mark Steyn at National Review Online's The Corner is not sugar-coating his displeasure at this appointment.

Quote(s):

"a truly dreadful appointment"

&

"Being on the House of Saud's payroll, directly or indirectly, should render one ineligible for subsequent government service."

And then it gets downright snarky.

re: "A Well-Credentialed (?) Ambassador"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") has me wondering how he was able to re-post this without commenting.

re: "The Panic over Political Appointments"

Charlie at Undiplomatic ("dedicated to covering the intersection of diplomacy, global issues, U.S. politics, and pop-culture") puts the political appointments process into perspective.

Money quote(s):

"I’m sympathetic with those of my colleagues who feel like they’re not being heard or “rewarded.” I was on one of the foreign policy teams and I haven’t heard anything back either."

(Fingers crossed for you, Charlie! - CAA)

"It’s not even the middle of January. No transition in history has started appointing positions below Undersecretary in January. And unlike past transitions, this one has focused not just on personnel, but also on fixing what everyone regards as a broken system. Since those recommendations just went to Secretary-Designate Clinton in the past week or two, it’s awfully hard for people to get appointments for positions that may be eliminated in a reorganization."

"(W)hile the process has not been transparent, that’s typical, not unusual — both the Clinton and the Bush process were just as opaque. There are good reasons for that: you don’t want people to know who the other candidates for a given job are, and you want to make sure that the process is designed in a way to limit favortism (sic), not reward it.

To be clear, I would love it if my friends and contacts on the transition teams were to tell me I was a lock for a job. But then they not only would be disingenuous, they also would exceed their authority."

"(T)here are more than 300 jobs on the Plum Book list Zengerle cites (11 pages, roughly 50-60 jobs listed per page). Some are designated for “career incumbents” (meaning foreign service officers) and others, such as most of the ambassadorships, will go to senior FSOs even though they technically are political appointees. But even if you take out those, there are at least 350 to 400 jobs there. And that doesn’t even include the jobs in NSC, Defense and DHS, not to mention the fact that Obama has pledged that Ambassadorships will go to talented experts rather than wealthy donors — and not all of those are going to be career FSOs."

&

"(O)ne rumor going around the building is that the various undersecretaries will have more resources and responsibilities, which probably means more staff positions. In fact, if you listen to the foreign service gossip, those positions are being created in order to find more jobs for those aspiring to a political appointment."