US Embassy Rwanda Remembers 26 Local Employees Killed in 1994 Genocide

Posted: 12:25 am EDT

 

.

.

.

.

.

To read about the frustrations of dealing with inaction from Washington, see Ambassador Prudence Bushnell interview, A Soul Filled with Shame via ADST. Below is an excerpt:

Once the RPF took over Rwanda, I was sent to check things out. It was yet another surreal experience. The countryside of one of the most populous countries in the world was literally deadly quiet. Berries ready to harvest were rotting on the coffee trees; houses stood vacant. The man who served as the ambassador’s driver drove us. When we were stopped by child soldiers at checkpoints, I learned never to look them in the eye. As we drove we heard the story of how the driver had hidden and what happened to some of the other embassy employees. Many were dead.

I participated in a memorial service for the FSNs [local Foreign Service employees] who were killed. I will never forget looking into the stony faces of employees who had been abandoned by the U.S. government. American officers who came up to speak would weep, to a person. The Rwandans just looked at us. I can only imagine what they were thinking and the trauma that was still with them.

She was asked what was the rationale for not getting involved:

“We had no interest in that country.” “Look at what they did to Belgian peacekeepers.” “It takes too long to put a peacekeeping operation together.” “What would our exit strategy be?” “These things happen in Africa.” “We couldn’t have stopped it.” I could go on….

I could and did make the argument that it was not in our national interest to intervene. Should we  send young Americans into a domestic firefight, possibly to be killed on behalf of people we don’t know in a country in which we have no particular interest? From the perspective of national interest, people like Richard Clarke will argue we did things right.

In terms of moral imperative there is no doubt in my mind that we did not do the right thing. I could have a clear bureaucratic conscience from Washington’s standpoint and still have a soul filled with shame.

#

Czech Prez Bans US Ambassador Schapiro From Prague Castle Just Days After Operation Dragoon Ride

Posted: 6:06 pm PDT
Updated: April 6, 2015, 9:17 am PDT

 

Sputnik News says that military parades will be held in 26 Russian cities to mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory over the Nazis in World War II. “Czech Republic Milos Zeman will visit Moscow in May to take part in the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, according to the presidential spokesperson.

The Prague Post reported that at the end of March, U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic Andrew Schapiro told the public broadcaster Czech Television (ČT) that while in Moscow, Czech President Miloš Zeman could be the only leading representative of an EU country, which might be somewhat precarious. Apparently, among EU countries, only the top representatives of Cyprus and Greece will go to Moscow for this celebration.  “A number of Western politicians have decided to boycott the Moscow celebrations due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.”  Ambassador Schapiro reportedly also said that it was not his task to tell the Czech president what to do or not to do.

That was the end of March.  On April 5, the Czech President reportedly cited what the American ambassador said on Czech Television (ČT) and declared that “the doors of the castle were closed” to Ambassador Schapiro.

“I cannot imagine that the Czech ambassador in Washington would advise the US president where he should travel. And I will not allow any ambassador to have a say in my foreign travel plans.”

 

Here is Prague Castle, the official residence and office of the President of the Czech Republic.

.

.

That was March, this is now April.  Did something else happen? Why yes. According to the Economist, “neither rain nor sleet nor snow, to quote the American postal service’s motto, have kept Czechs from lining the routes followed by three American military convoys through their country over the past few days.”

Operation Dragoon Ride saw units from the United States Army’s Second Cavalry Regiment travel through the Czech Republic from March 29th to April 1st, the final stretch of an 1,800km jaunt through six eastern NATO countries. 

.

 

In any case, Ambassador Schapiro did not even know that he’s been banned from the Prague Palace Castle. The Czechs have been sounding off on Twitter, with some apologizing for their president and others saying their houses are open for the ambassador.

 

Click here for photos of hundreds of Czechs who welcomed 15 commanders of the U.S. army convoy and Ambassador Schapiro, as they laid flowers and wreaths to the Thank You America Memorial in Plzen a week ago.

#

Update:

LittleSis: HRC Complex Corporate Ties

Posted: 10:37 am EDT

 

“…our problems have never respected dividing lines between global economics and international diplomacy. And neither can our solutions. That is why I have put what I call economic statecraft at the heart of our foreign policy agenda.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

Of the 425 large corporate donors to the Clinton Foundation, the Wall Street Journal found 60 of those donors lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure. Excerpt:

Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, says: “She did the job that every secretary of state is supposed to do and what the American people expect of them—especially during difficult economic times. She proudly and loudly advocated on behalf of American business and took every opportunity she could to promote U.S. commercial interests abroad.”

Corporate donations to politically connected charities aren’t illegal so long as they aren’t in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.

In some cases, donations came after Mrs. Clinton took action that helped a company. In other cases, the donation came first. In some instances, donations came both before and after. All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department

A project of the Public Accountability Initiative. More about LittleSis. Read the disclaimer.
Related items:

Journalists to Diplomats in Iran Nuclear Talks: We are out of clean underwear!

Posted: 12:05 pm EDT

 

.

.

 

It’s a good thing something is breaking …

 

#

A chilly year up north? How Canada left U.S. Ambassador Bruce Heyman out in the cold

Posted: 12:57  am EDT

 

On March 16, the United States and Canada signed  a new agreement reaffirming the United States and Canada’s commitment to enhancing security while facilitating lawful travel and trade, and supersedes the existing U.S.-Canada Air Preclearance agreement signed in 2001.  The new preclearance agreement – allowing for the immigration, customs and agriculture inspections required for entry into either country to occur on foreign soil – will reportedly reduce congestion and delays at the border and increase efficiency and predictability in cross-border travel, tourism and transportation.

.

.

All smiles there, and why not?

Then yesterday, the Globe and Mail’s Campbell Clark has a long piece on what is reportedly Bruce Heyman’s “rough year” as America’s ambassador to Ottawa.

For Mr. Heyman, it’s telling that since the day he presented his credentials nearly a year ago, when he and his wife Vicki had a 15-minute meet-and-greet with Mr. Harper and his wife Laureen, the U.S. ambassador has never had a one-on-one with the PM.
[…]
“There was no edict,” one senior Canadian government figure insisted. But several sources said there was at least a common narrative, from the Prime Minister’s Office to ministers, that Mr. Heyman wasn’t welcome.

.

.

.

Today, there’s also this Vanderbilt Mag piece noting that “Our northern neighbor is the United States’ largest goods trading partner, with $632 billion in total goods trade in 2013.”

“Bruce and I are really tackling this job as a team,” says Vicki. “We’ve been traveling the country like road warriors. Top to bottom, right to left.”

.

A related note — right there is an example of unpaid labor by a chief of mission spouse, a tradition deeply valued by the State Department until 1972 when the directive on diplomatic wives was issued and thereby ruined the much-beloved twofer system. That’s when participation by a Foreign Service wife in the work of a post was deemed “a voluntary act of a private person” and when the diplomatic spouse’s performance memorandum stopped being placed in the FSO’s performance dossier. We presumed, by the language of the directive, that up to 1972 there were no accompanying male diplomatic spouses in the service.

#

 

The spox sat on a stump and did she not thunk this crappy script stunk?

Posted: oo:29 am EDT

 

Or see video Foreign Policy Follies with Jen Psaki here via YouTube.

Oh, here below is one from Democracy Now:

 

We agree that the Maduro accusations have been ludicrous for a while now (see Venezuela: Nicolas Maduro’s Theory of Everything — Blame The Yanquis!). But when you add, “as a matter of longstanding policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means …” we tripped all over the hallways and stairwells and have all sorts of bruises to show for it. In times like this, we revert back to an old habit of getting drunk on bad rhymes. Who writes these scripts? Do they practice with  a mirror? Folks, there’s a whole crowd of people on the Internets who can’t quit laughing over this. And they’re not just laughing at Ms. Psaki, or the State Department. They’re laughing at the United States of America.  Ay dios mio! You, okay with that?

 

Transcript via DPB on February 13, 2015:

QUESTION: President Maduro last night went on the air and said that they had arrested multiple people who were allegedly behind a coup that was backed by the United States. What is your response?

MS. PSAKI: These latest accusations, like all previous such accusations, are ludicrous. As a matter of longstanding policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal. We have seen many times that the Venezuelan Government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan Government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

QUESTION: The U.S. —

QUESTION: Sorry, Jen —

QUESTION: Sorry. The U.S. has – whoa, whoa, whoa. The U.S. has a longstanding practice of not promoting – what did you say? How longstanding is that? I would – in particular in South and Latin America, that is not a longstanding practice.

MS. PSAKI: Well, my point here, Matt, without getting into history —

QUESTION: Not in this case.

MS. PSAKI: — is that we do not support, we have no involvement with, and these are ludicrous accusations.

QUESTION: In this specific case.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: But if you go back not that long ago during your lifetime, even – (laughter) – this is not that long since —

MS. PSAKI: The last 21 years. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well done. Touche. But I mean, does “longstanding” mean 10 years in this case? I mean, what is —

MS. PSAKI: Matt, my intention was to speak to the specific reports.

QUESTION: I understand, but you said it’s a longstanding U.S. practice, and I’m not so sure – it depends on what your definition of “longstanding” is.

MS. PSAKI: We will – okay.

QUESTION: Recently in Kyiv, whatever we say about Ukraine, whatever, the change of government and then the beginning of last year was unconstitutional, and you supported it. The constitution was —

MS. PSAKI: That is also ludicrous, I would say.

QUESTION: — not observed.

MS. PSAKI: That is not accurate, nor is it with the history of the facts that happened at the time.

QUESTION: Yes, the history of the facts. How was it constitutional?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t think I need to go through the history here, but since you gave me the opportunity – as you know, the former leader of Ukraine left of his own accord —

QUESTION: He did not leave his country.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I think we know the facts here, and we’ll certainly give you an article on the facts to take a look at.

#

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Rodriguez vs Secretary Kerry Blinken Higginbottom Sherman WHA’s Jacobson

Posted: 00:12 EDT

 

Delcry Rodriguez (@DrodriguezVen) is the Venezuelan Foreign Minister. Her equivalent in rank in the U.S. Government is Secretary of State John Kerry.

A few weeks back, Western Hemisphere Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson (@WHAAsstSecty) tweeted four items on Venezuela. Note that she is the top diplomat at the State Department’s Western Hemisphere Affairs  bureau. She reports to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs (“P”) Wendy Sherman, who in turn is outranked by the Deputy Secretary of State Higginbottom  (D/MR) and Deputy Secretary Blinken (D)  who  both report directly to Secretary of State Kerry.

So when Foreign Minister Rodriguez took on Assistant Secretary Jacobson on Twitter, one has to wonder, what was she thinking? Asst Secretary Jacobson is a top official at the WHA bureau but nowhere near the rank of a foreign minister.  Can you imagine Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arguing publicly with the State Department’s Toria Nuland from the EUR bureau? No. Can you imagine Secretary Kerry sparring publicly with a lower-ranked official from the Venezuelan foreign ministry? Nope.

So every time the foreign minister opens her mouth to argue, berate or call the WHA diplomat names, we’ll award the diplomatic  heavyweight  championship belt to the assistant secretary.  Assistant Secretary Jacobson wins simply by being in the same ring with Foreign Minister Rodriguez.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Oh dear, that’s an ALL CAPS alert!

Now, once more, with feelings:

 

Meanwhile in Cuba:

#

Former Iran Hostage John Limbert on Bibi’s Bizarre Piece of Diplomacy

Posted: 12:39 EST

 

In 1979, John Limbert was a new FSO posted to the U.S. Embassy in Tehran when it was overrun by Iranian students. He was one of the fifty-two U.S. personnel who spent 444 days as Iran hostages from 1979-81. Later in his career, he was appointed Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. He currently serves as Professor of International Affairs at the U.S. Naval Academy.  In yesterday’s issue of the Guardian, Ambassador Limbert writes that “there is a remarkable parallel between denunciations of Binyamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress and of a possible nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1. Those who condemn the former haven’t heard it; and those who condemn the latter haven’t seen it.”  Excerpt:

[H]is words will not matter. What will matter is the obvious symbolism of his presence in a partisan and political event. Netanyahu will denounce Iran and its evil ways, but behind these denunciations his real target lies elsewhere. The speech will be a divisive event, in which, for his own reasons, Netanyahu has entered the American political arena and thrown in his lot with President Obama’s opponents. In this political mêlée, Iran becomes the means to weaken him.

Such a bizarre piece of diplomacy may play well with the far right in the United States and with Netanyahu’s own constituency in the coming Israeli elections. In the process he does not seem to care how many dishes he breaks or how much he damages Israel’s relations with the president of its most important ally.
[…]
If Netanyahu dislikes and distrusts the Islamic Republic, fair enough. In his negative views he has lots of company. But does Iran’s being difficult mean that there should be no deal to limit its nuclear program? Shouldn’t the P5+1 negotiate the best possible, but perhaps imperfect, agreement? In 1981, the Iranians and Americans reached a deal that brought me and 51 of my embassy colleagues home after 14 months’ captivity in Iran. The deal stuck, although the United States neither liked the Iranians, nor trusted them. At times it is necessary to talk to unattractive regimes and to negotiate agreements that deliver outcomes less than ideal. Rejecting a nuclear deal with Iran – before such a deal has been reached – will do nothing to bring about a better outcome.

Continue reading, Netanyahu’s supporters (and critics) don’t really care what he says to Congress.

 * * *

So wait — Hillary Clinton never got a state.gov email? What does the FAM say?

Posted: 01:05 EST

 

Via NYT—  from Michael S. Schmidt

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Continue reading, Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

.

.

.

.

.

And then this:

.

 

Oops, what’s that?

 

Holy moly sugar and macaroni!

Hey, what happens to State employees who ditch their state.gov emails for hotmail or gmail to conduct government business?

Let’s see —

5 FAM 443.1 Principles Governing E-Mail Communications:
(TL:IM-19; 10-30-1995) 

a. All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and  preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules.

5 FAM 443.2 Which E-Mail Messages are Records
(TL:IM-19; 10-30-1995) 

a. E-mail messages are records when they meet the definition of records in the Federal Records Act. The definition states that documentary materials are Federal records when they:

  • —are made or received by an agency under Federal law or in connection with public business; and
  • —are preserved or are appropriate for preservation as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government, or because of the informational value of the data in them.

[snip]

c. Under FRA regulations (36 CFR 1222.38), principal categories of materials, including E-mail, that are to be preserved are:

  • —records that document the formulation and execution of basic policies and decisions and the taking of necessary actions;
  • —records that document important meetings;
  • —records that facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in office;
  • —records that make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress or other duly authorized agencies of the Government; and
  • —records that protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Government’s actions.

According to 5 FAM 440, e-mail messages that may constitute Federal records include: (1) E-mail providing key substantive comments on a draft action memorandum, if the E-mail message adds to a proper understanding of the formulation or execution of Department action; (2) E-mail providing documentation of significant Department decisions and commitments reached orally (person to person, by telecommunications, or in conference) and not otherwise documented in Department files;  (3) E-mail conveying information of value on important Department activities, e.g. data on significant programs specially compiled by posts in response to a Department solicitation, if the E-mail message adds to a proper understanding of Department operations and responsibilities.

What else?

The FAM also says that the Department’s Records Management Office (OIS/RA/RD) conducts periodic reviews of the records management practices both at headquarters and at overseas posts. “These reviews ensure proper records creation, maintenance, and disposition by the Department. These periodic reviews now will include monitoring of the implementation of the Department’s E-mail policy.”

Okay, OIS/RA/RD, you’re about to get your 15 minutes of fame.

 

Related item:

5 FAM 440  ELECTRONIC RECORDS, FACSIMILE RECORDS, AND ELECTRONIC MAIL RECORDS 
(CT:IM-158; 12-29-2014) (Office of Origin: A/GIS/IPS)

 * * *

Tweet of the Day: Ambassador Tueller Meets Yemen’s Hadi in Aden

Updated: 14:42 PST

 

 

There are news items floating around that the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a will be moved to Aden. That news is not true. Below via the Daily Press Briefing on March 2, 2015:

QUESTION: Is there any plan to open any embassy or U.S. embassy there or an office?

MS. HARF: In Aden?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: No plans?

MS. HARF: No. We are currently exploring the option of some embassy staff relocating to another country in the region as we’ve done other places, but no, no plans to relocate to Aden.

QUESTION: And how do you view that some Arab states especially moved their embassies or opened embassies in Aden?

MS. HARF: Well, each country can make its own decisions about where it has its diplomatic representation, and we’ll make ours.

That’s that for now.