Posted: 3:37 am EDT
Agenda Magasin, an online magazine for political analysis and commentary based in Oslo recently published, “Congress, send Norway an ambassador” by Thor Steinhovden. Below is an excerpt:
Norway has never gone this long without an American ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. Norwegians may now face the scary scenario of Donald Trump sending a representative, three years too late.
In September 2013 the American Ambassador to Norway, Barry White, completed his posting and left the country. 840 days later the United States has yet to send a replacement. That’s more than 120 weeks, or over two years and three months. Now, Norway risks having to wait until spring 2017. In other words, our closest ally will then have neglected to send a presidential representative for over three years.
The story behind this failure is complicated, but illustrates a political situation in the U.S. that is crippling the president’s ability to effectively carry out foreign policy. The story includes a failed nomination, “The Nuclear Option”, the P5+1 Iran deal, and not at least, the race for 2016.
For many Norwegians it probably seems both odd and incomprehensible that one of the world’s superpowers cannot manage such a simple task as to deploy an ambassador to a close ally like Norway. It becomes more incomprehensible when one considers the fact that the hold-up is not related to neither the candidate, nor the bilateral relationship.
If Donald Trump or Ted Cruz then occupy the White House, Norway may find itself welcoming a completely different character than Sam Heins. I believe most Norwegians agree with me that it is probably best for all of us if we avoid that scenario. It is time: Congress, send Norway an ambassador!
The article is a pretty good account of what happened to the nominations dating back to 2013 when the initial nominee melted down on C-SPAN.
We don’t know if the Heins nomination will make it through the Senate, but even if it does get a full vote, and Mr. Heins gets to Oslo, this is an election year. There will be a new occupant in the White House come January 2017. All ambassadors –including Mr. Heins if he gets confirmed this year — resign their positions following a change in Administration. The resignations of career ambassadors are typically almost always refused, while those of political appointees are almost always accepted. Which means, unless the nominations of political ambassadorships get confirmed soon, the window of opportunity is winding down. At some point, it becomes a waste of resources to pack and ship an ambassador designate’s household effects if he/she gets to serve as chief of mission for only a few months; that is, only to pack out again after the November 2016 elections. Of course, it can be done, we just can’t recall an example, but would folks really subject themselves to such a relocation for a short-term ambassadorship? We’ll have to wait and see.
Posted: 2:27 am EDT
Below is Stephen Colbert’s interview with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The main feature in this interview is the declassified memo (PDF) from General Myers and an accompanying eight-page Joint Chiefs of Staff report which makes clear that the Intelligence Community’s (IC) “don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know” and that “knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program is based largely – perhaps 90% – on analysis of imprecise intelligence.” Read more here via UNREDACTED from the National Security Archive.
Posted: 4:08 am EDT
Updated: 2:29 pm EDT
Our State Department friends have a favorite response to most questions. “It depends.”
About 10 years ago, State/OIG conducted a review of the Visa Referral Process in Nonimmigrant Visa Adjudication.
By law neither an ambassador nor a DCM can direct a consular officer to issue a particular visa. Even the Secretary of State has no authority to override a consular officer’s deci sion, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1104. Recognizing the importance of the visa process both as a bilateral diplomatic issue and as a legitimate diplomatic tool for achieving U.S. aims, and considering the importance of providing as much information as possible to consular officers, the Department has long understood the need for a policy and system to allow all elements of the mission to benefit from the visa system and to protect consular officers from inappropriate pressure. After September 11, 2001, this system has been signifi cantly strengthened.
Based on the results of the survey, observations in the field, and discussions in Washington, OIG concluded that most ambassadors and DCMs appear to under stand the importance of their personal oversight of the referral system and that there are serious repercussions, including removal from post, in the most egregious cases of abuse. While Department oversight of referral systems is important, entrusting chiefs of mission with local supervision and responsibility is still appro priate and necessary, just as the Department entrusts chiefs of mission with the lives of all employees and dependents in their missions, the management of top secret information, and the conduct of key bilateral relations with the host country.
Clearly most missions’ front offices are overseeing the referral system as intended by the Department, sometimes after a little persuasion. For example, an officer at a post that was having problems said, “Our recent OIG inspection was helpful in making the front office realize the impact of their interventions with us and the appearance of undue influence. Despite our education of the front office, they have been incredulous that their good causes may pose us problems under the law.” One of the areas of emphasis for OIG inspection teams is border security readiness, which includes oversight of the referral program.
The survey, however, did reveal some disillusionment with the available recourses in those instances when the front office was itself exerting undue influence. One officer at a post in the Near East said, “In general the consular section feels pressure to act simply as a rubber stamp to visa referrals by chiefs of section and above.” Another stated,“The front office is the only section that has ever tried to influence decisions in referral cases. If I were to refuse the case, then I would be hurt in the employee evaluation report (EER) process as my rater is the DCM and the Ambassador is the reviewing officer.”
It’s an instructive read from 2005, see in full here (PDF).
The Offices of Visa Services and Fraud Prevention Programs, the Consular Integrity Division, and the front office of the Bureau of Consular Affairs all expressed concern about the embassy’s contravention of the worldwide visa referral policy. In the latter half of 2013, the Ambassador in seven cases and the DCM in two cases contravened the worldwide nonimmigrant visa referral policy by submitting noncompliant referrals and improperly advocating for issuance.
Complications arising from noncompliance with the policy led to deteriorating relations between the consular officer and other embassy offices, perceptions of intimidation and isolation, and increased involvement of and intervention by various offices in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. In response to revised guidance from the Bureau of Consular Affairs on referral policy, dated January 13, 2014, Embassy Dushanbe issued a management notice on January 17, 2014. On October 15 and 17, 2014, the embassy conducted briefings for referring officers and obtained current compliance agreements reflecting the revised policy guidance. The OIG team met with the front office and the consular officer, and they confirm that they understand and are committed to continuing to comply with the policy going forward.
How is it that this consular officer did not get the Barbara Watson Award for demonstrating courage?
In at least 15 documented cases, the Ambassador contravened the worldwide nonimmigrant visa referral policy (9 FAM Appendix K, Exhibit I) by contacting the consular chief to communicate information about visa applicants instead of providing referral forms for the applicants. The referral policy states, “Referrals are the only allowed mechanism to advocate for or assist visa applicants prior to visa adjudication.” Some of the cases involved previously refused applicants. Referral policy permits requesting assistance via referral on behalf of previously refused applicants only in extremely limited circumstances. Few, if any, of the violations involved applicants who would have been eligible for visa referrals. The consular chief did not take adequate steps to stop the Ambassador’s inappropriate communications or to report them to the Department, as required by Department referral polices.
The embassy provides no formal, detailed briefing (“referral school”) as recommended in the worldwide policy. The consular chief gives informal referral briefings on an individual basis to new arrivals at the embassy. Lack of a formal understanding of the referral policy and process can cause misunderstanding or abuse.
Wow! And the consular section chief got harshly treated by the … the um alphabet, which did not quite line up to say he/she was at fault but you get the idea.
It is not clear what kind of repercussions are suffered by chiefs of mission who contraven the worldwide nonimmigrant visa referral policy. According to a FAM update last November 2015, Consular Affairs has now added a NIV Referral Program Ombudsman (see 9 FAM 601.8-8(C).
Oh, wait, there’s more.
There’s an FSGB case where an FP-03 Diplomatic Security (DS) Special Agent (SA) with the Department of State (Department) was warned that there were strict prohibitions against anyone attempting to influence the visa process. The State Department later proposed to suspend him for four days on a charge of Misuse of Position. The proposal was sustained by the Grievance Board on March 3, 2015.
On October 5, 2010, a family friend of his (REDACTED), a (REDACTED) national, applied for a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa at the U.S. Embassy in REDACTED. His stated purpose for the visa request was to visit with grievant in the U.S. When the application was denied, grievant sent an email on that same date from his State Department account to REDACTED, the Deputy Consular Section Chief in REDACTED voicing his disappointment that his friend’s visa application had been turned down. In the email, grievant asked for assistance, provided additional information on behalf of his friend and cited his own experience as a DS officer who had collaborated with consular officials investigating fraud cases. All of grievant’s emails contained his electronic signature and identified him as “Special Agent, REDACTED, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security.” In response to this email, re-interviewed and approved his visa application. REDACTED subsequently visited grievant in the US.
To make the long story short, grievant was investigated (PDF) by DS for his efforts to procure visa approvals for his friend.
The Department reviewed the DS report of investigation (ROI) and determined that between 2010 and 2012, grievant used official communication channels to contact consular officials in the U.S. Embassy in and identified himself as a DS Special Agent in order to influence favorable decisions on visa applications submitted by his friend. On December 2, 2014, grievant received notice of the Department’s proposal to suspend him for four days on a charge of Misuse of Position. The proposal was sustained on March 3, 2015.
Posted: 1:35 am EDT
Excerpt from D/Secretary Antony J. Blinken on “American Diplomacy: Preparing for the Challenges of Tomorrow,” February 2, 2016:
Every day, our team here at State works towards big goals like this that benefit from the leadership and creativity of the innovation community.
And every day, our team tackles issues at the intersection of technology and foreign policy—from modernizing arms control agreements to negotiating norms of behavior in cyberspace or outer space.
Despite this focus, we need to create more bridges that allow our diplomats to tap into the energy and ingenuity of American education, innovation, and entrepreneurship—and enable our foreign policy priorities to spark or accelerate new ideas.
Developed under Deputy Secretary Burns’ leadership, the Foreign Service Institute’s Center for the Study of the Conduct of Diplomacy is one such bridge—ensuring that we apply the lessons of the past to our conduct and actions in the future.
We are also developing a new core curriculum at FSI, to ensure that everyone starts their careers with foundational knowledge and skills relevant to this century. Through new and experiential training, we will prepare our officers to better understand unstated assumptions that shape conflict and collaboration, apply future forecasting to the geopolitical world of tomorrow, and tap into unconscious drivers of behavior that will help us effectively conduct and advance our foreign policy.
To help build another of these bridges, Secretary Kerry recently established the Innovation Forum in order to enable our foreign policy leaders to be able to see around the innovation corner—to ask important questions like: “What does the revolution in robotics mean for warfighting? What do advances in artificial intelligence mean for our labor markets? What does the advent of digital currency mean for the dollar?”
Read in full here.
Posted: 1:01 am EDT
The Hill reports:
Sen. Ted Cruz blocked a Democratic push to approve a handful of State Department nominees on Wednesday, even though the Texas Republican is far from D.C., campaigning in New Hampshire. […] Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), however, objected to each of the nominations, noting that he was doing so on behalf of Cruz. The presidential candidate has pledged to block State Department nominees over the Iran nuclear deal. Cardin called Cruz’s objections a “master class in needless partisan obstruction.”
Last month, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) took to the floor to urge for the confirmation of the nominees for Sweden and Norway, but spoke at length on behalf of Sam Heins, the nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway who hails from her state.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to call on the Senate and all of my colleagues to allow us to move forward on the nomination of Sam Heins of Minnesota to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway. The U.S. Ambassador for Sweden has also been held up. Coming from the State of Iowa, which I believe is over 10 percent Scandinavian–over 300,000 people–I think the Presiding Officer understands the importance of our country actually having Ambassadors to these incredibly important allies and nations.
It has now been 836 days since there was last a confirmed Ambassador to Norway, one of our most important European allies. Part of this situation was caused by a different nominee who has some issues with the committee and with other Senators. That person has now been replaced, and it has been 166 days since a new nominee went through the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Heins was approved by a voice vote, without any controversy, as was the Ambassador to Sweden. I thank Senators Corker and Cardin and Senators McConnell and Reid for their help in trying to get this through.
Unfortunately, these nominations are now being held up by Senator Cruz. Based on my discussions with him, it is not because of the qualifications of these nominees; it is related to, I suppose, other issues. Yet, I note for those Scandinavians out there, Senator Cruz has allowed votes on Ambassadors to other countries. We have Ambassadors in France, in England, in nearly every European nation, but not these two Scandinavian countries.
Perhaps people don’t understand the importance of these nations because they just think these people wear sweaters all the time. I don’t know what they think of Norway and Sweden, but, in fact, Senator Cruz should understand that they are two of our best allies. Norway is one of our country’s strongest and most dependable allies.
I am focusing today on Norway. I will focus on Sweden in the future as I continue to give these speeches. I don’t think we can take these countries lightly just because it is cold there and darker in the winter. These are incredibly important allies and trading partners. They deserve to be treated like other European nations. They deserve to have an ambassador from the United States of America.
It is time to end this delay and do the work the Senate is supposed to do. Let’s move ahead and work to confirm these qualified nominees to represent us abroad. One is a country in Europe that just bought 22 fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. If they had bought 22 fighter planes from the Presiding Officer’s State, I believe the Presiding Officer would have looked at the fact that if it is a noncontroversial nominee to a country that invests in the United States of America, that is an ambassador we need to get confirmed, and we would get this done.
Read in full here (PDF) from the Congressional Record.
Posted: 2:52 am EDT
The WSJ called the oldest executive agency in the union, the Department of Hillary, and accused the entire State Department of “vigorously protecting Hillary Clinton.” It asks, “how it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has become an arm of the Clinton presidential campaign?”
That is a sweeping accusation and we do not believe that to be true, but whether it’s true or not is immaterial. The perception is widely shared, even by reporters covering the State Department. Our interest on HRC primarily relates to her tenure at State. We think that her management of the department — whether it relates to her email server, having a deputy chief of staff holding four jobs, special access to certain groups, operation in a bubble of mostly yes-people — was galling and distressing. We do agree with Prof. Jonathan Turley when he writes that he “consider the decision to use exclusively an unsecure server for “convenience” to be a breathtakingly reckless act for one of the top officials in our government.”
Last month HRC was also quoted as saying, “I’m not willing to say it was an error in judgment.”
Folks will have to make up their own minds whether they agree with her or not, but the State Department is still paying a price for it. And the way this mess has been handled places at risk the institution’s deeply held tradition that the career service stay above the political fray.
The National Security Archive bluntly writes:
[T]he Federal Records Act, federal regulations on the books at the time (36 CFR 1263.22)[Official as of October 2, 2009], and NARA guidance which the State Department received (NARA Bulletin 2011-03), should have prevented Clinton’s actions, requiring her to provide “effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business”. (Read here for our analysis of why Clinton, and hundreds of others at State, including its FOIA shop and IT department, were in the wrong for not blowing the whistle on her personal email usage.) Read more here.
At some point in the near future, there will need to be a reckoning about what the senior officials, the career senior officials in Foggy Bottom knew about what during the Clinton tenure.
On Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:26 p.m. Lewis Lukens sent an email to M/Patrick Kennedy (email released via FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch (PDF). Lukens who was then the Executive Secretary (he was subsequently appointed US Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau), writes, “I talked to cheryl about this. She says problem is hrc does not know how to use a computer to do email only bb. But I said would not take much training to get her up to speed.” The email chain talks about setting up “a stand alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connected to the internet” but apparently a separate system not through the State Department system that would allow HRC to “check her emails from her desk.”
What’s the difference between using a State Department system and a stand alone system for somebody who doesn’t know how to use a computer? But more that that, we want to understand why it was necessary to set up a stand alone system. Did previous secretaries of state have their own stand alone systems? Did they have their own private email servers? Can somebody please explain why that was necessary?
This email was sent three days after HRC took the oath of office of Secretary of State (see starting page 6 below or see PDF here).
So, if they were considering setting up a stand alone PC on the 7th Floor and that did not happen, how could anyone in the top ranks of the career service not know when HRC’s people set up a private server away from the building? If they did not know, they were not doing their jobs. But if they did know, what does that mean? Did anyone speak up and consequently suffer career purgatory? Please help us understand how this happened. Email us, happy to chat with anyone in the know because this is giving us ulcers.
A related item about communications — in March 2009, the then Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Eric Boswell sent a memo to HRC’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills concerning the use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row. In that memo, also released via FOIA litigation with Judicial Watch, Boswell writes that “Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row [redacted] considerably outweighs the convenience their use can add to staff that have access to the unclassified OpenNet system on their desktops. [redacted] We also worry about the example that using Blackberries in Mahogany Row might set as we strive to promote crucial security practices and enforce important security standards among State Department staff.”
The last paragraph of the memo says “If, after considering the vulnerabilities that I describe above and the alternatives that I propose, the Secretary determines that she wants a limited number of staff to use Blackberries in Mahogany Row …. [redacted].” (See below or see PDF here)
What the career professionals proposed can, of course, be ignored or dismissed by the political leadership. How much of it can one tolerate? Some of it, all of it?
Below is an August 30, 2011 email between then HRC deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and Steve Mull, who we believed succeeded Lukens as Executive Secretary of the State Department. Following that assignment, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Poland, and last year, he was appointed Lead Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation. The Daily Caller obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on its behalf by Cause of Action and has reported about the emails here. It shows the top officials who were loop in on the secretary’s communications setup, but it also points to what we suspect has always been the rationale on the server and email setup that now has consequential repercussions for the agency. In one part of the email, the executive secretary writes, “We’re working with …. to hammer out the details of what will best meet the Secretary’s need.” (See below or see ScribD file here).
It is not surprising that the career folks worked to accommodate the needs of their principals. We doubt anyone would last long in any assignment if they simply tell their boss blah, blah, blah can’t be done.
But — no individual in the upper ranks, career or noncareer, has so far been shown to stand up to a principal by saying “no, this is not allowed” or “this is not acceptable,” or even something like — “this is not against the rules but it looks bad.”
Does one draw a line between public service and service to a political leadership? Are they one and the same? What would you do?
Last September 2015, WaPo reported this:
But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general record-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.
But the early call from the State Department is a sign that, at the least, officials in the agency she led from 2009 to 2013 were concerned by the practice — and that they had been caught off guard upon discovering her exclusive use of a private account.
Well, we’re sure the rank and file was caught off guard but which State Department officials were actually caught off guard? At least according to the Mull-Mills email exchange of August 2011, S/ES and M were aware of the existence of Secretary Clinton’s personal email server.
So when unnamed State Department officials talked to the Washington Post journalists last year, dammit, who did they say were actually caught off guard?
If anyone at M who has oversight over IT, Diplomatic Security, FOIA and federal records cited the Federal Records Act between 2009-2013 was shipped to Timbuktu for bringing up an inconvenient regulation, we’d like to hear about it.
Make no mistake, the perception that the Service had picked a side will have repercussions for the Foreign Service and the State Department. If there is an HRC White House, we may see old familiar faces come back, or those still in Foggy Bottom, may stay on and on and just never leave like Hotel California.
But if there is a Trump or a Whoever GOP White House, we imagine the top ranks, and who knows how many levels down the bureaus will be slashed gleefully by the incoming administration. And it will not be by accident.
Posted: 2:31 am EDT
This case is about a member of the security detail of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who asserted that he was drugged, kidnapped and robbed during a trip overseas in June 2012. The State Department says that “the grievant consumed nine alcoholic beverages the night before the meeting and the flight, left his hotel alone at 2:30 a.m. the morning of the meeting and flight, and remembers nothing after that until he allegedly awoke at 10:15 a.m. in a car with three strangers in a wooded area 25 km. from his hotel.”
Public records indicate that the then secretary of state was on foreign travel to Oslo and Tromso, Norway from June 1-2, 2012.
The following is excerpted from the Record of Proceeding from FSGB No. 2014-043:
Grievant joined the Department in 2011. The instant grievance arises from events on the evening of June 1 and morning of June 2, 2012, in and around (REDACTED), while grievant was assigned to temporary duty (TDY) as a member of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Security Detail (SD) during the Secretary’s official visits to (REDACTED) and (REDACTED).
Grievant, an untenured Special Agent in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, grieved the Department’s Decision to suspend him for 14 days without pay and place a discipline letter in his Official Personnel Folder for Failure to Report for Duty. The Department charged him with failure to report for a morning meeting and missing a flight from REDACTED to REDACTED on June 2, 2012, while a member of Secretary Clinton’s Security Detail. As aggravating factors, the Department cited the fact that grievant consumed nine alcoholic beverages the night before the meeting and the flight, left his hotel alone at 2:30 a.m. the morning of the meeting and flight, and remembers nothing after that until he allegedly awoke at 10:15 a.m. in a car with three strangers in a wooded area 25 km. from his hotel. Grievant was removed from the Security Detail and sent home from REDACTED, with other members of the Detail picking up his assignments in REDACTED. Grievant asserted the affirmative defense that he was drugged, kidnapped, and robbed, making it impossible for him to report for scheduled duty. He further complained that the Department’s investigation of the incident was biased and procedurally flawed, that he has been improperly harmed by the Report of Investigation, that the Department mischarged him, that his “off-duty” conduct should not constitute an aggravating factor, and that the penalty was unreasonably harsh and inconsistent with penalties meted out for similar or lesser offenses in recent years.
Grievant states that at approximately 10:15 a.m. on June 2, he awoke in the rear passenger seat of a car parked in a wooded area with three other sleeping men whom he could not identify but who looked “vaguely familiar.” He exited without waking the others and followed a path to a road. At approximately 11:00 a.m., grievant contacted an SD team member and was instructed to flag down a public bus and proceed to the nearest railway station. After being picked up by the ASAIC, the Assistant Regional Security Officer, and a local national, grievant stated that he felt very groggy, “more than just hung over.” They took him to a local medical center for evaluation, and then to a police station, where grievant filed a report of the incident, noting that $80 and a credit card were missing from his wallet (though other credit cards and grievant’s BlackBerry were still in his possession).
As the circumstances of grievant’s disappearance were unclear, and his report of feeling groggy raised questions about his neurocognitive condition, the Department removed him from the SD and ordered him to return to the U.S. Blood and urine tests from the medical center came back negative for the substances screened (so-called “date-rape drugs” Oxazepam, Benzodiazepine, and Creatine), and the (REDACTED) police ultimately dismissed grievant’s complaint that he had been robbed “by unknown perpetrator” for lack of evidence. (Note: Grievant argues in the FSGB case that “although tests at the medical center detected no drugs in his system, the tests did not screen for common “date rape” drugs GHB, Ketamine, and Rohypnol and thus do not disprove that he was drugged.)”
On the other hand, the Department asserts that grievant has produced no evidence in support of his affirmative defense (i.e., that he was “likely” the victim of a crime that prevented him from reporting for duty). There is no witness testimony establishing that he was kidnapped, drugged, and robbed. The tests performed at the medical center produced no evidence that grievant was drugged, and grievant’s complaint that the screening was not comprehensive for all common “date rape” drugs, even if true, in no way establishes that he was in fact drugged (italics added).
Wait, but if he was tested for all common date drugs, and it shows, wouldn’t that have provided some evidence that something happened to him beyond just the alcoholic drinks?
The Foreign Service Grievance Board says that “consistent with its obligation to promote the efficiency of the Service, the Department must have latitude to determine how best to conduct an investigation and frame an ROI. We are not persuaded by the evidence or arguments submitted by grievant that the Department abused its discretion or violated applicable law or regulation in carrying out its investigation of grievant’s failure to report for duty or in formulating its conclusions in the ROI.”
It held that “the Department has met its burden of proving that the charged misconduct (Failure to Report for Duty) occurred, that a nexus exists between grievant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the Service, and that the proposed punishment is proportionate to the offense. Grievant has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to the affirmative defense he asserted” and denied the grievance appeal by the special agent.
Read in full here:
If the document embed does not display in full, the FSGB file is accessible here as PDF.
Posted: 2:15 am EDT
Via state.gov/flo as of November 2015:
Posted: 2:10 pm EDT
According to FP’s John Hudson, the Bureau of Counterterrorism (State/CT) will now become the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism (CT-CVE). The name change will reportedly “play up the importance of non-military programs aimed at eliminating the root causes of terrorism — programs referred to in government-speak as CVE.” The report also says it is unclear how “in practice the bureau would effectively coordinate the work of other key offices” citing in particular the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) recently rebranded as the Global Engagement Center (GEC). Excerpt below:
But the center, newly-branded as the Global Engagement Center, will not report directly to the bureau, according to officials. It will continue to report to the under secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Its new leader is Michael Lumpkin, a former U.S. Navy officer who previously served as assistant secretary of defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Despite its lack of demonstrated effectiveness, the center’s annual budget of $5 million is expected to increase by at least $2 million. The president’s budget request for the next fiscal year is expected to be made public next week.
Some former officials said they worried that the Bureau of Counterterrorism’s new mandate is in name only. In reality, the bureau is heavily micromanaged by the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewall– a dynamic that has caused tension and dysfunction in the past. “If they want it to function the way they say it’s going to function, then the under secretary needs to step back and let the bureau do it’s job, but I don’t think that’s going to happen,” said a former State Department official.
Active link for State/J added. Read more:
A related note, HRC was furnished a copy of an oped on the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) in 2012, drafted by then “R” Judith McHale and CSCC’s Richard LeBaron. In an email to Jake Sullivan, HRC writes, “This is a good idea but it was my idea which is not reflected in the text and I’d like us to clasim (sic) it.” The email is available to read here (PDF) via foia.state.gov.
- @StateDept Gears Up For Counterterrorism Messaging in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa
- @StateDept Announces Michael D. Lumpkin as Head of New Global Engagement Center
- State Dept’s Bureau of Counterterrorism Writes to “Correct the Record” on GAO Report That Needs No Correction