Posted: 3:04 am EST
Via Japan’s The Asahi Shimbun:
Posted: 3:04 am EST
Via Japan’s The Asahi Shimbun:
Posted: 3:58 am PST
The U.S. diplomats in Venezuela were given 72 hours to leave the country by the Maduro Government following President Trump’s recognition of Juan Guaido, as the Interim President of Venezuela. The deadline would have been Saturday, January 26.
On January 24, the State Department declared an “ordered departure” status for the US Embassy in Caracas. On the same day, Maduro also extended that his deadline to Sunday, January 27.
On January 25, some members of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas were reported to be heading to the airport. AP reported that a letter by a U.S. Embassy security officer requesting a police escort for a caravan of 10 vehicles was leaked earlier in the day and published on social media by a journalist for state-owned TV network Telesur.
That RSO letter was not sent to the US-recognized Venezuelan government, the request was sent to local police, and was leaked to state-owned TV network. State-owned for now, remains the Maduro government.
On January 26, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Maduro’s government suspended the expulsion of U.S. diplomats and cites a 30-day window for talks to set up interest sections following the rupture of diplomatic relations.
This is similar to what happened in Cuba in January 1961 when full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba were severed. For several years, the United States was represented by Switzerland as its “protecting power” in Cuba. Much later, the U.S. Interest section opened in Havana. Below from the state.gov archives:
For the next 16 years, the U.S. was represented by the Swiss Embassy in Cuba. The U.S. Interest Section, or USINT, opened on September 1, 1977 re-occupying the seven-story former U.S. Embassy building. Officially, the Interests Section is part of and U.S. diplomats are accredited to the Swiss Embassy.
The USINT diplomatic staff provides a normal array of political and economic reporting, consular and visa services, administrative and security support and public affairs representation. Consular operations dominate USINT activities in Cuba, especially the implementation of the U.S. policy goal of promoting safe, legal, and orderly migration from Cuba to the United States. USINT has issued over 100,000 immigrant and refugee travel documents since 1994. By virtue of a reciprocal agreement, personnel ceilings are in effect limiting the number of personnel assigned to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and the Cuban Interest Section in Washington.
But that’s supposing that the United States would consider setting up an Interest Section in Caracas.
It appears that Venezuela’s announcement maybe a one-sided plan. On January 27, Secretary Pompeo also issued a statement of its acceptance of the appointment of Carlos Alfredo Vecchio as the Chargé d’Affaires of the Government of Venezuela to the United States by interim President Juan Guaido.
The Maduro Government is moving towards an Interest Section in DC but the United States has already accepted interim President Juan Guaido’s appointment of Carlos Alfredo Vecchio as the Chargé d’Affaires in the United States as of January 25. “Mr. Vecchio will have authority over diplomatic affairs in the United States on behalf of Venezuela.”
The Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, D.C. is now closed for consular services; we don’t know if it’s been vacated. How or where the recognized Venezuelan CDA conducts diplomatic affairs remain to be seen. But it does not look like the US is looking to set up a reciprocal Interest Section.
So we’re back to what’s going to happen when the 30-day window runs out.
Just got ahold of memos from the U.S. embassy in Caracas that helps spell out the security situation: As of last night, 124 Americans under the embassy's authority, a figure that included 46 family members 1/ https://t.co/o0GcijYmSA
— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) January 25, 2019
Meanwhile in Caracas and online, Maduro is shown dancing, going on a military march, and on patrol in the “coasts of Puerto Cabello in Amphibious Tanks, willing to defend our Homeland.”
RT @PresidentialVen: This is the Official Communiqué read by President @NicolasMaduro where mechanisms for the creation of the Office of Representation of Official Interests between the U.S. government and the Venezuelan government are agreed upon. pic.twitter.com/adC9KtWET2
— Nicolás Maduro (@maduro_en) January 27, 2019
Maduro showing off his dance moves.
Today, the joy of our youth was present in the act, I expressed my full support. Every young person in our country must be involved in study, work and social protection. Let nothing stop us! pic.twitter.com/qFvZgdhxrU
— Nicolás Maduro (@maduro_en) January 27, 2019
Maduro showing off a military march in a green shirt!
Military March with the men and women of the 41st Armored Brigade at Fort Paramacay. Men and Women of Honor! pic.twitter.com/3sSbHpAVLz
— Nicolás Maduro (@maduro_en) January 27, 2019
Maduro showing off a ride.
We patrol the coasts of Puerto Cabello in Amphibious Tanks, willing to defend our Homeland. pic.twitter.com/99TFGa5s9j
— Nicolás Maduro (@maduro_en) January 27, 2019
Posted: 4:11 pm PST
Secretary Pompeo appeared today at the State Department Press Briefing Room to announced the appointment of Elliott Abrams as the “it” guy for Venezuela. We will blog about that separately. But here is the secretary of state’s response on the concern about the U.S. diplomats left in Venezuela as Maduro’s 72-hour deadline approaches.
MR PALLADINO: Let’s go to Washington Post. Carol Morello.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I think a lot of people are concerned about the diplomats who are down there. Would you tell us what you’re prepared to do if tomorrow, when the 72-hour deadline passes, they – the Venezuelans cut off electricity and water, maybe even surround the building, or even try to go in to bring out the diplomats by force? Could you be specific about what you are prepared to do in the event of any of these scenarios? And how can you assure people that they are protected?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I appreciate that question. There’s been no activity that’s taken more of our time over the past days than ensuring the protection of all those folks that are under our chief of mission authority there in Venezuela. We’re working diligently to make sure that they are protected. There’s no higher priority for the Secretary of State, and you should know no higher priority for the President of the United States. We have discussed this at some length.
With respect to the way we will deliver that, we’ve made clear to everyone that it is our expectation that the U.S. officials that are there, that have now been invited to be there by interim President Juan Guaido have a right, they have the privileges and immunities that accrue to having been invited to be there by the duly credentialed leader of Venezuela, and we have every expectation that those rights will continue to be protected.
You would have seen today that we have ordered a – have an ordered departure. We’re beginning to move some of our staff out. This is consistent with what the State Department does every day. The first briefing I get every morning is all around the world, every mission, every consulate, every facility where we have officers, I receive a briefing on risk and risk analysis. We’ll continue to do that in Venezuela. It is literally a 24/7, moment-by-moment exercise to evaluate risk to the people who work for me in the State Department, and we’ll get this right. We will make sure that we protect our folks on the ground and take all appropriate measures to ensure that they’re protected.
QUESTION: And if they’re not?
MR PALLADINO: Thank you guys.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you all.
More about Venezuela here:
Posted: 8:37 pm PST
In the afternoon of January 24, the US Embassy in Caracas issued a Security Alert announcing the mandatory departure of non-emergency USG personnel from Venezuela:
On January 24, 2019, the State Department ordered non-emergency U.S. government employees to depart Venezuela. The U.S. government has limited ability to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in Venezuela. U.S. citizens should contact U.S. Embassy Caracas for consular assistance. U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Venezuela should strongly consider departing Venezuela. Commercial flights remain available.
Actions to Take:
Consider departing while commercial flights are available.
If choosing to stay, ensure you have adequate supplies to shelter in place.
Monitor local media for updates
Review personal security plans
Remain aware of surroundings
U.S. Embassy, Venezuela
For all inquiries about ACS services email email@example.com or call +58 (212) 975-6411 between the hours of 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except U.S. and Venezuelan holidays.
For emergency assistance after hours call +58 (212) 907-8400
State Department – Consular Affairs
888-407-4747 or 202-501-4444
While the Security Alert does not specifically addressed USG family members at the US Embassy in Caracas, a State Department spokesperson confirmed to us that the ordered departure includes not just non-emergency direct-hire U.S. government personnel but also eligible family members of U.S. government personnel posted at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas.
We were informed that the State Department is taking this action based on its “current assessment of the security situation in Venezuela“ and that it has “no plans to close the Embassy.”
Also that “The United States will maintain diplomatic relations with Venezuela through the government of interim President Guaido, who has invited our mission to remain in Venezuela.”
We asked if there is a plan for USG-sponsored flights out of Venezuela and we were told that commercial flights remain available and that U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Venezuela should strongly consider departing the country.
We should note that the host country government, in this case Venezuela’s is responsible for the safety of diplomatic personnel in country. The State Department did not explain how Venezuela Interim President Guaido plans to protect the US Mission and personnel in Caracas given that he has no control over the military and security forces.
The United States no longer recognizes the Maduro Government as the country’s legitimate government nor does it recognize its authority. So, whatever skeletal crew the US Embassy Caracas will keep, it will be in country that has also declared our diplomats unwelcomed. The United States has threatened appropriate action if the mission or US diplomats are harmed there, but that’s small comfort to the people in the crosshairs or loved ones watching this from afar.
In the last 24 hours we have heard from folks using the words “bait” and “poker chips” to describe our people in Venezuela. Under the Trump Administration, Secretary Pompeo has declared the United States continuing diplomatic presence in Venezuela. Our diplomats will stay because they’re ordered to stay and they have a job to do. But what job is that exactly? Is there anyone in the 7th Floor who actually thinks Maduro will just sit back and watch when U.S. diplomats go about their business working with Interim President Guaido in Caracas? Really?
On January 24,
@SecPompeo also announced that the United States is ready to provide “more than $20 million in humanitarian aid to the people of Venezuela …to cope with food and medicine shortages and the other dire impacts of their country’s political & economic crisis.”
The State Department has yet to elaborate the logistics of sending humanitarian aid to a country with two presidents, one who actually still runs the country but the United States does not recognize, and the other who does not run the country but the United States do recognize.
And then this via the Caracas Chronicles:
If Maduro manages to hang on through the coming few weeks, the hemisphere will find itself in the very uncomfortable situation of having no interlocutor in Caracas. If Nicolás Maduro grabs Peruvian diplomatic facilities, who is the Peruvian Foreign minister going to call to protest, Guaidó? If the government expropriates Colombian company assets, what good does it do Duque to call Guaidó to protest? If an American Airlines jet gets impounded in Maiquetía, who does Pompeo bawl out? If Canadian citizens get thrown in jail on plainly made up spying charges, who is Chrystia Freeland supposed to complain about consular access to? Gustavo Tarre?
When this happens, what are you gonna do, Mike? Read more: Guaidó’s Diplomatic Rulebook Problem.
As the @StateDept warns #US Citizens in #Venezuela keep in contact with the US Embassy in #Caracas "to receive the latest safety and security updates,” it is worth noting that this yellow banner on the embassy website is a little worrying.. https://t.co/lFn0nN9JCF pic.twitter.com/y18fHR3LLP
— Matt Hoye (@mattyhoyeCNN) January 24, 2019
This implies a lack of planning or understanding re: how the security forces would respond to the @POTUS announcement — calling for the departure of all non essential personnel after saying they were staying belies disorganization and frankly puts our personnel more at risk.
— Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) January 24, 2019
#Venezuela Security Alert: On January 24 the State Department ordered non-emergency US govt employees depart Venezuela. US citizens residing or traveling in Venezuela should strongly consider departing Venezuela. Commercial flights remain available. https://t.co/TRfgsVAZKo pic.twitter.com/7xSP3uk4WG
— acsvenezuela (@acsvenezuela) January 24, 2019
— TimJohnson (@TimJohnson4) January 24, 2019
— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) January 25, 2019
Worth bearing in mind that Venezuela's military have allowed Colombia's ELN guerrilla group to operate freely in Venezuela. The same ELN that last week drove a car bomb into a police academy in Bogota and killed 19 cadets between ages of 18 and 23 https://t.co/t0caTBjnLo via @WSJ
— David Luhnow (@davidluhnow) January 24, 2019
— NTN24 Venezuela (@NTN24ve) January 24, 2019
The Walter and Leonore Annenberg Award for Excellence in Diplomacy is an annual award given by the American Academy of Diplomacy in recognition of an individual or group who has made exemplary contributions to the field of American diplomacy. It is the Academy’s highest honor and its purpose is to highlight the important contribution of all aspects of diplomacy to the nation’s business. The Award is presented at the Academy’s Annual Awards Luncheon at the State Department in the fall, during which the recipient acts as keynote speaker. Recipients of the Annenberg Award are recommended by the Academy’s Executive Committee and are approved by the Board of Directors.
This year’s Annual Awards Luncheon took place at the Benjamin Franklin Room on Tuesday, November 20, 2018. The event was co-hosted by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan. The awardee this year was the 13th and 19th White House Chief of Staff and 61st United States Secretary of State, James A. Baker, III.
James A. Baker, III, has served in senior government positions under three United States presidents. He served as the nation’s 61st secretary of state from January 1989 through August 1992 under President George H.W. Bush. During his tenure at the State Department, Baker traveled to 90 foreign countries as the United States confronted the unprecedented challenges and opportunities of the post–Cold War era. Baker’s reflections on those years of revolution, war and peace — “The Politics of Diplomacy” — was published in 1995. Read more here.
Below are some previous recipients of the Annenberg Award. The full list is here.
2017: William J. Perry
The 19th United States Secretary of Defense
2016: Robert B. Zoellick
Former World Bank Group President & U.S. Trade Representative
2015: William J. Burns
Under Secretary of State
2014: Carla A. Hills
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
2013: George P. Shultz
Secretary of State
2012: Richard G. Lugar
2011: Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
2010: Harold Saunders
Director of international affairs, the Kettering Foundation
2009: William Lacy Swing
Director General, International Organization for Migration (IOM)
2008: Ryan C. Crocker
Ambassador to Iraq
— Jimmy Kimmel Live (@JimmyKimmelLive) September 14, 2018
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 16, 2018
— POLITICO (@politico) September 14, 2018
— Nicholas Wadhams (@nwadhams) September 13, 2018
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 10, 2018
AND NOW THIS FROM A SMART TERRIER —
So to recap the day, Trump tweets "17 years since September 11!".
Pompeo's State Department is now calling itself the "Department Of Swagger"
And Trump warns hurricane Florence will be "Very big and very wet"
This is possibly the worst reality show ever pic.twitter.com/0BJA1jaWS3
— Rex the TV terrier (@rexthetvterrier) September 11, 2018
Former Ambassador to Slovakia Ron Weiser and his wife, Eileen Weiser recently gave a $10 million gift to the University of Michigan to establish a new diplomacy center (thanks CM!). The university announced that the Weiser Diplomacy Center, housed at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, will bring a diverse cadre of seasoned diplomats and foreign policy experts to campus.
“The Weiser Diplomacy Center will enhance the University of Michigan’s and the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy’s ability to advance international understanding and develop policies that improve lives around the globe,” said U-M President Mark Schlissel.
“This new initiative will help train a new generation of informed, principled, and entrepreneurial students committed to international affairs,” said John Ciorciari, director of the International Policy Center at the Ford School. “It will also help connect the academy to the world of foreign policy practice to generate new ideas for addressing the many global challenges we face. No comparable concentration of diplomatic expertise exists at any university in the Midwest.”
“Under the leadership of Dean Michael Barr, the Ford School is well positioned to become the best public policy school in the country,” said Ron Weiser, former ambassador, founder of McKinley Inc. and a member of the U-M Board of Regents. “I am pleased to provide resources to help in this important field. Diplomacy is not just relationships between countries, it’s about relationships between people . . . it can change the direction of a country, affecting tens of millions of people.”
The announcement also says that the gift will support professors of practice in international diplomacy as well as shorter-term opportunities for diplomats in residence from around the world. The goal is to strengthen U-M’s role as a national leader in international policy education.
We're thrilled to announce the new Weiser Diplomacy Center—made possible through the vision and generosity of Regent Ron Weiser and Mrs. Eileen Weiser—to serve as a hub for engagement with the #foreignpolicy community. https://t.co/dyENpUBaWB #diplomacy pic.twitter.com/ep5xUk303d
— Ford School (@fordschool) September 5, 2018
“It was an honor to be Ambassador Weiser’s colleague in Central Europe as we worked shoulder to shoulder to make that region a prosperous and close friends of the United States,” says @AmbChrisHill on the announcement of the new Weiser Diplomacy Center. https://t.co/dyENpUBaWB pic.twitter.com/8sXrkvOB6n
— Ford School (@fordschool) September 10, 2018
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island, 17 April 2018
This is the third and last of three connected lectures on diplomatic doctrine. The series was preceded by an introductory presentation. This lecture deals with diplomacy as risk management. The first lecture described diplomacy as strategy; the second as tactics.
At its most basic level, diplomacy is the management of foreign relations to reduce risk to the nation while promoting its interests abroad. In this task, diplomacy’s success is measured more by what it precludes than by what it achieves. One can never prove that what didn’t happen would have happened if one had not done this or that. But, for the most part in foreign affairs, the fewer the surprises and the less the stress, the better.
The ideal outcome of diplomacy is the assurance of a life for the nation that is as tranquil and boring as residence in the suburbs. And, like suburban life, in its day-to-day manifestation, diplomacy involves harvesting flowers when they bloom and fruits and berries when they ripen, while laboring to keep the house presentable, the weeds down, the vermin under control, and the predators and vagrants off the property. If one neglects these tasks, one is criticized by those closest, regarded as fair prey by those at greater remove, and not taken seriously by much of anyone.
Viewed this way, the fundamental purpose of U.S. foreign policy is the maintenance of a peaceful international environment that leaves Americans free to enjoy the prosperity, justice, and civil liberties that enable our pursuit of happiness. This agenda motivated the multilateral systems of governance the United States created and relied upon after World War II – the Pax Americana. Secretary of Defense Mattis has called this “the greatest gift of the greatest generation.” Institutions like the United Nations. its specialized agencies, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organization, and related organizations like the World Trade Organization sought to regulate specific aspects of international behavior, manage the global commons, provide frameworks for the resolution of international disputes, and organize collective responses to problems.
In the aggregate, these offspring of U.S. diplomacy established and sustained widely accepted norms of behavior for many decades. International law drew on consensus to express these norms as rules. To the extent they were accepted internationally, these rules constrained state actions that could damage the common interests of the society of nations the rules had brought into being. Despite its uneven performance, the Pax Americana assured a relatively high degree of predictability in world affairs that facilitated peaceful international interactions. It did so on the same philosophical basis as the rule of law in domestic affairs – a belief that rules matter and that process legitimizes outcomes rather than the other way around.
Today, that philosophy and its ethical foundations are under attack both at home and abroad. For the time being, at least, Washington has set aside the rule-bound international order and the market-driven economic interactions it enabled. The United States is discarding the multilateral strategic framework that it built to restrain the behavior of lesser states in the last half of the 20th century. In its place, the Trump administration is experimenting with neo-mercantilist theories that seem to have been crowd-sourced to right-wing talk radio. Washington seeks to maximize U.S. leverage over trading partners by dealing with them only on a bilateral basis. Trade and investment are increasingly government-managed and hence politicized rather than freely contracted between private buyers and sellers. So far, it must be said, bird-brained bilateralism is proving no substitute for the complex regulatory regimes it is replacing and the supply chains it is disrupting.
With the fading of previously agreed codes of conduct and the principle of PACTA SUNT SERVANDA [“agreements must be kept”], what could once be taken for granted in managing relations with other states must now be repetitiously renegotiated and affirmed bilaterally. But Washington has demoted diplomacy as a tool of American statecraft in favor of primary reliance on military and economic coercion. Escalating uncertainties are driving nations toward unrestrained unilateralism and disregard for international law. As this century began, the United States popularized contemptible practices like the assassination and abduction for questioning under torture of foreign opponents. A lengthening list of other countries – China, north Korea, Russia, and Turkey, to name a few – have now brazenly followed this bad example. More issues are being deferred as intractable, addressed ad hoc, or dealt with through the threat or use of force.
In this new world disorder, the need for diplomacy to tend fraying relationships is manifestly greater than ever. The Congress and public, as well as the U.S. military, sense this. They have resisted efforts by the Trump administration to slash budgets for peaceful international engagement by the U.S. Department of State and related agencies. Still, the American diplomatic imagination has not been so myopic and enervated since before World War II. Nor have U.S. investments in diplomacy, Americans’ expectations of their diplomats, or international trust of the United States been so low.
Diplomatic preparedness requires constant attention to other nations and their views. Showing that one’s government is interested in and understands what others think encourages them to be more receptive to one’s own ideas. Attentiveness to their needs, views, and doubts signals willingness to work together and cultivates willingness to cooperate in defending common interests. The regular nurturing and reaffirmation of relationships is what makes it possible to call on a network of friends in times of need. Responding politely and considerately – in the least offensive way one can – to others’ messages conveys respect as well as substance. It invites their sympathetic study of the logic, intent, and interests behind one’s own messages.
Constant diplomatic intercourse promotes stability and predictability. It inhibits inimical change, reducing the risk that amicable states will become adversaries or that adversaries will become enemies. And it provides situational awareness that reduces surprise and enables governments to respond intelligently and tactfully to trends and events.
All this may seem obvious. But it takes a sustained commitment by national leaders, public servants, and well-trained diplomats as well as reliable funding to carry it off. In the contemporary United States, none of these is now assured. The safety net provided by routine diplomacy as I have just described is increasingly neglected. The resulting disarray in American international relationships is shaking our alliances, eroding cooperation with our international partners, raising doubts about U.S. reliability, causing client states to seek new patrons, and diminishing deference to U.S. national interests by friends and foes alike. Increases in military spending demonstrate eagerness to enhance warfighting capabilities. But greater capacity to wreak havoc does nothing to rectify the doubts of foreign nations about American wisdom, reliability, and rapport in our conduct of relations with them.
U.S. military power is as yet without effective challenge except at the regional level. But, on its own, it is proving consistently incapable of producing outcomes that favor our national security. It is a truism that those who cannot live by their brawn or their wallets must live by their wits. Neither war nor the threat of war can restore America’s lost political primacy. Only an upgrade in American competence at formulating and implementing domestic and foreign policies, coupled with effective diplomacy in support of credible American leadership, can do that.
In recent years, Americans have become better known for our promiscuous use of force and our cynical disregard of international law than for our rectitude and aspirations for moral excellence. U.S. foreign policy has featured unprovoked invasions and armed attacks on foreign countries, violations of their sovereignty through drone warfare and aid to insurgents, assassinations and kidnappings, interrogation through torture, the extrajudicial execution of citizens as well foreigners, universal electronic eavesdropping, Islamophobia, the suspension of aid to refugees, xenophobic immigration policies, and withdrawal from previously agreed frameworks for collective action on issues of global concern, like climate change. This sociopathic record inspires only the enemies of the United States. It is not a platform that wins friends, influences people in our favor, or encourages them to view us as reliable.