Daily Archives: September 4, 2015

Snapshot: Refugee Admissions to the United States, FY2005-2015

September 4, 2015 By in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service, Refugees, Snapshots, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 7:30 pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Via state.gov

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 4.20.19 PM

The full report is available to download here (excel file): Refugee Admissions Report 2015_07_31. Note that the August and September 2015 numbers are not yet included in the year-todate total for FY2015, which is 51,530 as of July 31, 2015.

#

US Embassy Budapest Issues Alert on Railway Station, Silent on Refugee/Migration Crisis on Doorstep

September 4, 2015 By in Ambassadors, Foreign Affairs, Hall of Shame, Huh? News, Migration, Realities of the FS, Refugees, Social Media, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Posted: 6:37 pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

The UNCHR in Budapest, Hungary writes that — an angry confrontation between police and refugees on a blocked train just outside Budapest; a makeshift camp of stranded Syrians, Afghans and others at the capital’s main railway station; more than 2,000 refugees crossing into the country from Serbia each day –the contours of Europe’s refugee and migration crisis are growing and shifting.  It describes the concourse in front of the main Keleti train station in Budapest as resembling a sad, makeshift campsite. “More than 2,000 people slept there overnight, a few in small tents, some with blankets and air mattresses, many on the cement floor covered in nothing but their clothes.”
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

On September 3, the U.S. Embassy in Hungary issued an alert concerning the migrants at the the Keleti Railway Station. This is about the only statement we could locate concerning the refugee crisis in its host country:

The U.S. Embassy advises all U.S. citizens in Hungary to be alert when traveling through the Keleti Railway Station (Palyaudvar).  Increasing numbers of migrants in and around the station have resulted in large crowds in public spaces.  Although these crowds have occasionally confronted police, demonstrations have been peaceful, and the presence of migrants has not led to a rise in crime, violent or otherwise.  However, even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.  You should avoid areas of demonstrations, and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations. Rail passengers should be prepared to show their passports to be admitted to the trains and platforms.  Rail traffic to and from the station has been subject to significant delays.  In some cases, departures have been cancelled.

On the same day when Hungary was accused of inhumane treatment of refugees, Embassy Budapest tweeted this:

.

A couple of weeks earlier, the U.S. Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bell toured Hungary’s majestic caves:

.

An FB commenter writes to Embassy Budapest:

Ambassador Bell, by not speaking against Hungary’s regressive and inhuman actions on refugees you are proving all the charges that you are an ineffective diplomat and mere window dressing. Perhaps you should join Donald Trump’s campaign. Hungary needs to become the great country she could be, not revert to her infamous policies of the 20th Century.

Two days ago, this photo shocked the world:

.
On September 3, the State Department spox tweeted this:

.
The latest from Embassy Budapest today is learning more about programs that support the conservation of culture, urging,  “Follow !”

On Facebook, there is a ‪#‎USAfridayQUIZ‬.

That’s all.

#

@StateDept hasn’t been authorized in 13 years, DOD has been authorized 53 years in a row

September 4, 2015 By in Congress, Defense Department, Follow the Money, Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State, State Department Tags: , , , , , 2 Comments

Posted: 5:53 pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

.

“For State-watchers, it’s just another example of a long and humbling truth: Washington cares more about the military than statecraft. While State hasn’t been reauthorized in 13 years, the Department of Defense has been authorized every year for 53 years in a row.

“I chalk it up number one to the American public and Congress cares, as a whole, less about funding the State Department and more about the Pentagon,” said Goldenberg.”

We understand from an excellent source that this year’s authorization act is reportedly not going anywhere. Nope. Not going anywhere at all, so we’re told not to worry about its contents.  Remains to be seen if Senator Corker can pull a rabbit out this hat. There’s a small window left in the congressional term.

#

US Embassy Tajikistan: Orders Shelter in Place and Temporary Closure

September 4, 2015 By in Americans Abroad, Consular Work, Foreign Service, FSOs, Realities of the FS, SCA | South Central Asia, Security, U.S. Missions, Uncategorized Tags: , , ,

Posted: 5:38 pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

.

#

Holy Mother of FAM!!! Oh, Mr. Toner, What Have You Done?

September 4, 2015 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Huh? News, Media, Regulations, Secretary of State, Spectacular, State Department Tags: , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Posted: 2:39 am PDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On August 31, the State Department’s deputy spox was asked if the Secretary of State is bound by the rules of the Foreign Affairs Manual or not? (see Question of the Day: Is the Secretary of State bound by the rules of the Foreign Affairs Manual or not?). On September 1, the question was asked again and Mr. Toner promised to get an answer.

On September 3, the question was revisited for the third time, and here is the delightful exchange:

QUESTION: I have a – I’d asked you a question the other day and you said you’d get me an answer to it —

MR TONER: Did I? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: — and the question was whether the Foreign Affairs Manual applies to secretaries of state? Does it?

MR TONER: So – (laughter) – yeah. So I did do some research into this, as did others. It is – the Foreign Affairs Manual is – it is not comprehensive in, nor is it a bible for all Foreign Service officers or civil servants. So – and what do I mean by that? I mean it’s not – for example, there’s things in there about reimbursement of the use of your private vehicle. Certainly, that doesn’t apply to the Secretary of State or many people within the State Department.

So it’s – what’s contained in the Foreign Affairs Manual – and this is – I apologize but this is a kind of an in-the-weeds question – all of that is not necessarily relevant to, for example, ambassadors or secretaries of state or senior Department officials. I mean, if I can say what I think the essence of your question was, and I’m sorry if this is presumptive, but was whether they are bound by the responsibility to protect classified information. That certainly is true, that any Secretary of State, any senior State Department official is bound by that. And I spoke to this the other day, is that any individual, whether you’re the Secretary of State on down, takes that responsibility seriously.

QUESTION: But my question —

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, I really – I was not asking whether they were bound by every aspect of it, including those that are not relevant to them. It was whether they’re bound – basically whether they’re bound by the things that are relevant to them.

So to take the one that you raised, which is not whether they’re bound to protect classified information or to take seriously the responsibility to protect classified information, the question would be then, since you raised that as a specific: Are they bound – are secretaries of state bound by the rules in the Foreign Affairs Manual with regard to the handling of classified information?

MR TONER: I would say, as they are pertinent to the – and again, I don’t have the Foreign Affairs Manual in front of me – but as they are pertinent to the responsibility to protect and safeguard classified information, and we’ve talked about this, frankly, ad nauseum about the gradations and how we classify stuff and how we look at it. But as those rules – they apply to everyone in the State Department, including, for example, politically appointed ambassadors, and certainly by a secretary of state who is appointed by the President and, frankly, serves at the pleasure of the President and is not a Foreign Service officer in that regard or a civil servant.

QUESTION: So insofar as the regulations of the Foreign Affairs Manual touch on the protection of classified information, they apply to everyone, including the Secretary of State?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t have it in front of me but – and I’m not trying to parse this, but in a sense I am. Insofar as those regulations apply to the protection and safeguarding of classified information, yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can we go back —

QUESTION: That didn’t seem like a parse to me.

MR TONER: Okay.

Selective application, amirite?

First, Mr. Toner says, “So I did do some research into this…” Excuse me, why the heck is he doing the research on this? What’s the use of the Office of Legal Adviser, if you can’t get them to issue a formal opinion on this matter?

Then he says, “the Foreign Affairs Manual is – it is not comprehensive in, nor is it a bible for all Foreign Service officers or civil servants.”

Oh dear. Quick! If you’re in a disciplinary process, tell your lawyers.

Saying “again, I don’t have the Foreign Affairs Manual in front of me” might be a trick in the PA playbook but it’s not cute, okay?  This question has been asked since August 31st. The FAM is online, and easily retrievable.

He did say that “Insofar as those regulations apply to the protection and safeguarding of classified information, yes,” when asked if  the protection of classified information apply to everyone, including the Secretary of State per FAM.

Hey, did you know that “reimbursement of the use of your private vehicle doesn’t apply to the Secretary of State or many people within the State Department?”

Makes you wonder, for all the stuff where the FAM doesn’t cover the Secretary of State and many other people within the State Department, what alternate rules and regulations govern their workplace, and conduct on and off their jobs?  We’d like to know in case we’re tapped by  President Julian Navarro to find a successor for the libidinous Secretary Larson.

But seriously.

Per 2 FAM 1111.1,  the Department of State articulates official guidance, including procedures and policies, on matters relating to Department management and personnel, known collectively as “directives,” in the Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook Series. Directives include Department administrative organization policies and procedures. These directives derive their authority from statutes, Executive orders, other legal authorities, and Presidential directives, such as OMB circulars, and Department policies.

Per 2 FAM 1115.5-1 the Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH) series is a supplemental series providing guidelines and procedures for implementing policies and directives contained in the FAM. Materials published in the FAH has the same force and effect as materials published in the FAM.

These directives apply to the Department of State and its operations worldwide (2 FAM 1111.3)

These directives apply to all Department of State and other relevant personnel worldwide (2 FAM 1111.4)

Note that 2. FAM 1111.4 does not make a distinction whether an employee is a career employee or a political appointee who is employed by the State Department.  Also, every time the FAM is updated, a Change Transmittal documents it.  All transmittals includes the following reminder:

Officers are reminded that Department-issued materials not codified in the Foreign Affairs Manual or its supplemental Foreign Affairs Handbook series generally have no regulatory validity (see 2 FAM 1115.2).

Pardon me?  Between 1-10, how confusing is all this? Sigh…

By the way, AFSA did ask a similar question earlier this year concerning this (see AFSA Politely Asks the State Dept: Is Adherence to the Foreign Affairs Manual Optional For Some?). We understand that the State Department had issued a response in the waning days of the previously elected AFSA Governing Board. As far as we are aware, that response has not been released to the AFSA membership. And we have not been able to get a response to two questions we sent to the newly elected president and VP of AFSA.

#

 

 

OPM Spends $133 Million on Credit Monitoring, Still No Credit Freeze

September 4, 2015 By in Contractors, Federal Agencies, Huh? News, Security, Spectacular, State Department, Technology and Work Tags: , , , , 2 Comments

Posted: 12:34 am PDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On September 1, OPM announced the $133M contract for identity thief protection and credit monitoring services for the 21.5 million individuals affected by the massive OPM breach that includes security clearance data. Our go-to expert on this says that “perhaps the agency should be offering the option to pay for the cost that victims may incur in “freezing” their credit files, a much more effective way of preventing identity theft.” Excerpt from Krebs on Security:

The only step that will reliably block identity thieves from accessing your credit file — and therefore applying for new loans, credit cards and otherwise ruining your good name — is freezing your credit file with the major credit bureaus. This freeze process — described in detail in the primer, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze — can be done online or over the phone. Each bureau will give the consumer a unique personal identification number (PIN) that the consumer will need to provide in the event that he needs to apply for new credit in the future.

Here is part of the OPM announcement:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) today announced the award of a $133,263,550 contract to Identity Theft Guard Solutions LLC, doing business as ID Experts, for identity theft protection services for 21.5 million individuals whose personal information was stolen in one of the largest cybercrimes ever carried out against the United States Government. These services will be provided at no cost to the victims whose sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, were compromised in the cyber incident involving background investigations.

“We remain fully committed to assisting the victims of these serious cybercrimes and to taking every step possible to prevent the theft of sensitive data in the future,” said Beth Cobert, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management. “Millions of individuals, through no fault of their own, had their personal information stolen and we’re committed to standing by them, supporting them, and protecting them against further victimization. And as someone whose own information was stolen, I completely understand the concern and frustration people are feeling.”

ID Experts will provide all impacted individuals and their dependent minor children (under the age of 18 as of July 1, 2015) with credit monitoring, identity monitoring, identity theft insurance, and identity restoration services for a period of three years. This task order was awarded under GSA’s Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) for Identity Monitoring, Data Breach Response and Protection Services which GSA awarded today.

The U.S. Government, through the Department of Defense, will notify those impacted beginning later this month and continue over the next several weeks. Notifications will be sent directly to impacted individuals.

 .

.

.

.

.

Heard that? Crickets.

#