@StateDept Designates All Posts in Turkey as Danger Pay Posts: Adana 25%, Ankara 15%, Istanbul 15% … More

Posted: 6:55  pm ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On April 3, 2016, the State Department’s Office of Allowances (A/OPR/ALS) has determined that danger pay is in effect for three diplomatic and consular posts in Turkey: Ankara (15%), Istanbul (15%), and Adana (25%).  Seven other areas in Turkey (including the Embassy Branch Office in Gaziantep) as well as “other” have also been designated as 25% danger pay locations.

via state.gov

via state.gov

The State Department terminated the “authorized departure” status of the U.S. Consulate in Adana, Turkey on February 29, 2016 (see @StateDept Terminates ‘Authorized Departure’ Status for Adana (Turkey) and Bamako (Mali)).

On March 29, the State Department announced the “ordered departure” of family members of USG personnel posted to U.S. Consulate in Adana, as well as family members of USG civilians assigned in Izmir and Mugla provinces. The evacuation also included military dependents from Incirlik AFB in Adana (see U.S. Consulate Adana and All DOD Dependents in Incirlik, Izmir, Mugla, Now on Ordered Departure).

Last year, when the State Department revamped its danger pay designations, Gaziantep located in the southeastern Anatolia, some 185 kilometers east of Adana and 97 kilometers north of Aleppo, Syria was one of the newly designated 25% danger pay differential posts worldwide, and the only location designated as such in Turkey. Until now. (See New Danger Pay Differential Posts: See Gainers, Plus Losers Include One Post on Evacuation Status).

 

Related posts: 

 

#

Advertisements

@StateDept Seeks to Limit Discovery in Clinton Email FOIA Court Case, Spox Can’t Say Why

Posted: 2:15 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Below is the State Department’s court filing via Politico:

On April 6, this obviously made it to the Daily Press Briefing:

QUESTION: — knowing that you’ll probably refer me to the Department of Justice. But – so yesterday or late yesterday there was a filing in the FOIA – the email FOIA – one of them, on the discovery – the order to grant discovery.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: And I’m just curious about this, because I haven’t actually seen the order, I’ve just read the stories about it. What does the department, through its lawyers, claim to be its standing for trying to limit the scope of questions asked of ex-employees?

MR TONER: So —

QUESTION: I mean, I can understand why you would be making a motion on behalf of current employees. And I could probably even understand why you say that this – they are being asked about their activities while they were in government. But this seems to be something – I mean, shouldn’t their own lawyers be making this kind of a motion? Why is the State Department making it?

MR TONER: So I appreciate the question and understand your interest in the story. You are correct insofar as – well, first of all, we did submit a filing with the court last night on this matter. But I cannot comment on the actual content of that court filing, because this is something that’s already – or that is a matter of ongoing litigation, so I can’t even comment on your question because it would speak to this matter that’s still in litigation.

QUESTION: Can you tell me if it says in there – I mean, maybe I’m just completely naive and ignorant —

MR TONER: I don’t have it in front —

QUESTION: — about this.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But does it explain in this motion how it is that the department has standing to make such a request on behalf of a former employee?

MR TONER: Again, I can’t speak specifically to this matter, but I can say that the department’s engaged on any given year in litigation before federal courts, administrative and arbitral tribunals. And depending on the facts —

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: — applicable procedures, and nature of the claims, we do – there may be discovery, but it is case by case.

QUESTION: No, I understand that.

MR TONER: And so – yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, the answer to my question could be very, very simple, that it’s – that it – it could be that it’s completely normal —

MR TONER: You’re asking whether it applies to ex-employees?

QUESTION: Well – no, it does. I know that the motion does cover them. I’m just curious as to what the —

MR TONER: What the rationale is?

QUESTION: Right. I mean, it may be very straightforward, that because they’re being asked to talk about stuff they did while they were in government that you do have some kind of standing to speak on their behalf.

MR TONER: And I will see if I can get you any —

QUESTION: And I’m just wondering if —

MR TONER: — more clarity on that.

QUESTION: Right. Thanks.

MR TONER: But I have to just preface that by saying —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: — I am restricted in what I can say when something – it’s an ongoing litigation.

#

Snapshot: Countries With Nationals in the U.S. on Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Posted: 1:12 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

From CRS via Secrecy News:

When civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters erupt in spots around the world, concerns arise over the safety of foreign nationals from these troubled places who are in the United States. Provisions exist in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to offer temporary protected status (TPS) and other blanket forms of relief from removal under specified circumstances. A foreign national who is granted TPS receives a registration document and an employment authorization for the duration of TPS.

The United States currently provides TPS to over 300,000 foreign nationals from a total of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Liberians have had relief from removal for the longest period, first receiving TPS in March 1991 following the outbreak of civil war, and again in 2014 due to the outbreak of the Ebola virus disease. The Administration designated TPS for foreign nationals from Yemen in 2015 due to the ongoing armed conflict in the country. Pressure is now on the Administration to extend TPS to migrants from Central America because of criminal and security challenges in the region.

Under the INA, the executive branch grants TPS or relief from removal. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has the discretion to issue TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if conditions do not change in the designated country. Congress has also provided TPS legislatively.

Screen Shot

 

Related item:

CRS: Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues (Feb 2016) PDF

 

#

Secretary Kerry Makes Historic Visit to #Hiroshima Memorial 70 Years After A-Bomb

Posted: 9:36 pm PT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Manama, Bahrain, Baghdad, Iraq, Kabul, Afghanistan and Hiroshima, Japan from April 6-10, 2016. Below is a photo taken during a walking tour of the Itsukishima Shrine off Hiroshima, Japan.  Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum & Park. More photos here.

Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida Leads Secretary Kerry on a Walking Tour of the walking tour of the Itsukishima Shrine Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida leads U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, and other officials on April 10, 2016, during a walking tour of the Itsukishima Shrine off Hiroshima, Japan, following the first round of discussions in the G7 Ministerial Meetings. [State Department Photo/Public Domain]

Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida Leads Secretary Kerry on a Walking Tour of the walking tour of the Itsukishima Shrine
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida leads U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, and other officials on April 10, 2016, during a walking tour of the Itsukishima Shrine off Hiroshima, Japan, following the first round of discussions in the G7 Ministerial Meetings. [State Department Photo/Public Domain]

We’d like to note that a mid-level Foreign Service officer Joel Ehrendreich, then an FS-1 political officer in Singapore submitted on five consecutive years a dissent to the policy of non-attendance at the annual ceremony in Hiroshima.  While serving in Tokyo in 2005 he was asked on behalf of the embassy to decline an invitation from the mayor of Hiroshima to attend the annual Peace Memorial Ceremony.  He recommended changing the policy and accepting the invitation.  It took five years, with Mr. Ehrendreich resubmitting his dissent each year, to change this policy.  In 2010 Ambassador John V. Roos attended the ceremony, a gesture that helped strengthen bilateral relations.  In 2o11, Mr. Ehrendreich was awarded the William R. Rivkin Award for constructive dissent by a mid-level officer.

 

#