US Embassy Lima Works on Repatriating Thousands of Americans #StuckInPeru

Updated: March 28, 9:45 am PDT

A Health Alert from US Embassy Lima in Peru notes that post is continuing its operations and is “coordinating with the Peruvian Government to arrange repatriation flights over the next few days for U.S. citizens to return to the United States.”
Post’s Alert issued on Tuesday said that “As of March 24, approximately 700 Americans have departed Peru on repatriation flights. It also announced the departure from post of Ambassador Urs, and the travel to Peru of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Julie Chung  “to support our aggressive repatriation efforts.”

“For medical reasons, Ambassador Krishna Urs departed Peru on March 20.  He continues to engage from Washington with senior Peruvian officials as well as to support the Department’s efforts on behalf of the United States.”

As of 5:00PM on March 25, post said it has  repatriated over 1000 Americans from Peru.
In video below released by Embassy Lima, the Chargé d’Affaires Denison K. Offutt says that there are currently over 5,000 Americans in Peru. We don’t know if all of them are asking to return to the United States, but if so, this would be one of the largest evacuations of U.S. citizens from overseas at this time. This is not as huge as the nearly 15,000 evacuation from Lebanon in 2006 but the  logistics of moving a large number of people to the United States with border closures and limited air traffic during a pandemic will be extraordinarily challenging.
According to Embassy Lima, the Peruvian government declared a national state of emergency on March 15, 2020, at 8:00 PM Peru local time.  Under the state of emergency, Peru enacted 15 days of mandatory quarantine, starting at 00:00 on March 16, 2020.  At 23:59 PM on March 16, 2020, the Peruvian Government closed all international borders (land, air, and maritime) and suspended all interprovincial travel within Peru (land, air, and river).
Update from post indicates unusual difficulties with host country in obtaining permission for these repatriation flights . First, the Government of Peru told Ambassador Urs on March 23 that it had authorized repatriation flights, only for the contracted airline to notify the embassy at night that the flights are not approved. The following day, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed to US Embassy Lima that no U.S. flights had been approved. Ambassador Urs then spoke to the Peruvian Foreign Minister at 6:45 a.m., during which time, he was reportedly assured that the permissions would be granted in time. The Peruvian government ultimately declined to provide the proper clearances for a LATAM flight to pick up Americans stranded in Cusco.  A charter flight operated by American Airlines departed Miami with a scheduled arrival at 12:30 p.m.  Embassy Lima said that the Peruvian government also declined to approve permits for the charter flight, so the pilot returned the airplane to Miami.
Something’s going on there, hey?
During the March 25 Special Briefing, CA PDAS Ian Brownlee called the logjam “a capacity issue on the part of the Peruvian Government” and that the “information didn’t efficiently trickle down to the people in the regulatory agencies that had to issue the permits, the landing permits for the planes.”
Embassy Lima’s update on March 25 said  that there were two flights scheduled today, but these are “booked with humanitarian priority individuals, including older adults, people with underlying health conditions, minors traveling without a parent or legal guardian, and other adults in need of medical assistance.” Also that “the U.S. Embassy is scheduling additional flights for this week pending Peruvian government authorization.” As of March 25, Embassy Lima was able to get its first flight from Cusco to Miami (via Lima) and is reportedly scheduling a flight from Iquitos to Miami. So that’s good news.
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne confirmed that Canada received the go-ahead for 3 Air Canada flights to bring stranded Canadians home from Peru this week.
On March 21, Politico reported that a U.S. official familiar with the situation said the Peruvian government is not allowing Americans stuck in Peru to leave until the White House ensures thousands of Peruvians are given safe passage home.[…] “The government of Peru is basically holding these Americans hostage,” the U.S. official said. “They want the U.S. to fill planes with Peruvians before they’ll let the planes land to pick up Americans. But they’re not ready or organized in the United States to gather their people up, and they don’t want to pay for the flight.“
Could Peru wait this out or slow this down as Americans stuck in Peru fumes louder, and clogs congressional offices with complaints? Already Senator Rubio (R-Texas FL) has publicly scolded the State Department for Americans stuck in Peru “due to lack or (sic) urgency by some in mid-level of .”
Except that Peru apparently wants something from the White House not the State Department.
March 25 DOS Special Briefing with CA PDAS Ian Brownlee called the logjam in Peru a “capacity issue:”

The logjam there was a capacity issue on the part of the Peruvian Government. To reduce this to simplicity, we had commitment from the senior-most levels of the government – from the foreign minister, et cetera, the ministerial level – that yes, the flight yesterday Monday would be able to go forward – flights yesterday Monday would be able to go forward. That information didn’t efficiently trickle down to the people in the regulatory agencies that had to issue the permits, the landing permits for the planes, and so the American Airlines flight that was going into Lima literally turned around as it was preparing to enter Peruvian airspace because it didn’t have the permit necessary.

The difficulty arises there from the fact that there was some infections in the civil aviation authority and in the civilian side of the airport, and they just shut down that entire entity and they’re trying to run it on a bit of a shoestring from the military side of the airport. We’re helping them address this shortfall by – we’ve taken the INL, the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement hangar on the military side of the airport, taken everything out of it. We’re arranging chairs in there at socially distant appropriate spacing and we’re preparing to use that as a working space, a processing space to move people through. We’re also preparing to send down a flyaway team of consular officers and we have a senior officer from the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs going down to assist as well. So we’re doing what we can to help the Peruvians fill that sort of capacity gap, and we hope – we hope – that this will keep things moving more fluidly in the future. Out.

#
Related post:
US Embassy Lima: Avianca Airlines May Have Outbound Flights For #StuckinPeru Americans

Hostage Crisis – Day 32: Federal Hostages Are Still Hostages #EndThisMitch

Americans Held Hostage at US Embassy Tehran For 444 Days Win Compensation After 36 Years. Finally!

Posted: 4:47  pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Very happy to see that this finally happened after so long a wait!

Via NYT:

After spending 444 days in captivity, and more than 30 years seeking restitution, the Americans taken hostage at the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979 have finally won compensation.

Buried in the huge spending bill signed into law last Friday are provisions that would give each of the 53 hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million. Victims of other state-sponsored terrorist attacks such as the 1998 American Embassy bombings in East Africa would also be eligible for benefits under the law.
[…]
The law authorizes payments of up to $10,000 per day of captivity for each of the 53 hostages, 37 of whom are still alive. Fifty-two hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981; a 53rd hostage had been released earlier because of illness. Spouses and children are authorized to receive a lump payment of as much as $600,000.
[….]
Some former hostages and their family members had expressed frustration at the Justice and State Departments for blocking efforts over the years to get compensation. In a sense, the spending bill represents Congress’s taking control of the BNP Paribas money back from the Justice Department.  Some hostages did not want to discuss the legislation. “It’s enough,” said Barry Rosen, who was a press attaché at the embassy. “We’ve gone through enough.”

.

#

Related posts:

The Iran Hostages: Long History of Efforts to Obtain Compensation (August 2015)

State Dept Updates 3 FAM 4140 Guidelines For USG Personnel Taken Hostage (September 2015)

Former Iran Hostage John Limbert on Bibi’s Bizarre Piece of Diplomacy (March 2015)

November 4, 1979: Iranian Mob Attacks US Embassy Tehran; Hostages Compensated $50/Day (November 2013)

Supremes Say No to Appeal from US Embassy Iran Hostages (May 2012)

Iranian Mob Attacks British Embassy in Tehran — It’s Dejavu All Over Again! (November 2011)

January 20, 1981: The Iran Hostages – 30 Years Later  (January 2011)

State Dept Updates 3 FAM 4140 Guidelines For USG Personnel Taken Hostage

Posted: 1:49 pm EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

We’ve previously blogged about the Iran hostages here (see Supremes Say No to Appeal from US Embassy Iran HostagesJanuary 20, 1981: The Iran Hostages – 30 Years LaterNovember 4, 1979: Iranian Mob Attacks US Embassy Tehran; Hostages Compensated $50/DayThe Iran Hostages: Long History of Efforts to Obtain Compensation).

In light of the significant shift in hostage taking by terrorists organizations (media reports say that there are roughly 30 Americans held hostage overseas), President Obama directed a comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward overseas hostage-takings last year.  On June 24, 2015, President Obama approved Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 30, U.S. Nationals Taken Hostage Abroad and Personnel Recovery Efforts and issued an Executive Order on the recovery of U.S. hostages taken abroad, which directs key organizational changes “to ensure that the U.S. Government is doing all that it can to safely recover Americans taken hostage overseas and is being responsive to the needs of their families.”  According to the Fact Sheet, PPD-30 “reaffirms” the U.S. Government’s dedication to achieving the safe recovery of U.S. nationals taken hostage abroad

On August 28, 2015, President Obama announced the appointment of James O’Brien as Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs (see President Obama Appoints James O’Brien as First Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs).

This past June, the State Department also updated its Foreign Affairs Manual related to U.S. Government personnel taken hostage. That affirmation for safe recovery is item one on the updated FAM, a language that had been absent from the rules books for at least 20 years.

Note that per 2 FAH-1 H-115.3, the new version does not comply with the standard FAM colors, which requires that new or revised material be shown in both darkmagenta™ (R139,G0,B139) and in italic. We’ve marked the changes below for easier identification.

3 FAM 4143 GUIDELINES FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL TAKEN HOSTAGE (pdf via state.gov)

(CT:PER-770; 06-02-2015)
(State/USAID/BBG/Commerce/Foreign Service Corps-USDA) (Applies to Foreign Service and Civil Service Employees) 

a. The U.S. Government will make every effort to recover U.S. Government personnel who are victims of a hostage taking incident while serving abroad.

b. Individuals who are taken hostage should be aware that their captors may seek to exploit their knowledge of sensitive information to the detriment of the United States or their fellow hostages. Individuals should be mindful that whatever they say may be used to mislead or punish their colleagues, and that information obtained from one captive may be used when interrogating another. Captured individuals should not divulge classified or sensitive information and should not discuss sensitive aspects of the work of any fellow hostages.

c. Individuals should be aware that active members of the U.S. Armed Services who are taken captive are subject to different legal authorities and organizational policies when they are captured, due to their possible status as Prisoners of War. For additional information please reference Executive Order 10631.

d. If detained with other captives, it is essential to avoid internal conflicts within the group and maintain a unified approach to the captors (e.g., group agrees not to discuss religion, politics or the economy with the captors).

e. While awaiting rescue, individuals taken hostage should make an effort to:

(1) Eat and drink to preserve their health and seek opportunities to remain mentally active;

(2) Circumstances permitting, build rapport with their captors by humanizing themselves;

(3) Leave evidence of their presence in each location (such as strands of hair, fingerprints, blood, bits of fingernails, etc.); and

(4) Maintain faith in their individual beliefs and have confidence in the efforts of their family and the U.S. Government to obtain their release.

f. If asked to produce evidence of proof of life, such as a photo or a video, it is advisable to do so as it confirms the individual’s continued survival to family and possibly the U.S. Government entities working on your release, and aids in the negotiation process.

g. The decision to attempt escape rests with the individuals concerned based on their judgment, environment, and level of threat. However, the decision should be consistent with the considerations set forth above.

h. In the event of a recovery operation, individuals awaiting rescue should drop to the ground, ensure their hands and face are visible, and identify themselves as American citizens.

i. For more information, Department personnel can follow this link to the High Threat Security Overseas Seminar: Abduction: Prevention, Preparation and Response for Individuals.

j. Hard and fast rules are not always helpful and the U.S. Government recognizes that the ability of individuals to resist extreme pressure differs. But, to the extent possible, one must help one’s colleagues and avoid exploitation. Sound judgment is essential.

Below is the old 3 FAM 4143 guidelines that took effect on November 8, 1995; we have not been able to find a version in effect after 1995 and before it was superseded by the June 2, 2015 version (pdf via the Internet Archive):

3 FAM 4143 GUIDELINES FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL TAKEN HOSTAGE
(TL:PER-303; 11-08-1995)
(Uniform State/USAID/USIA/Commerce/Foreign Service Corps-USDA) (Applies to Foreign Service and Civil Service Employees)

a. U.S. Government personnel serving abroad are expected to be mature, responsible, and patriotic individuals for whom the concept of service has a real and personal meaning.

b. Individuals who are taken hostage should be aware that their captors may seek to exploit them. Their captors may be seeking information to be used to the detriment of the United States or of their fellow hostages, and are likely to use information obtained from one captive when interrogating another. Individuals should consequently be guided by the knowledge that whatever they say may be used to mislead or punish their colleagues and that their actions may result in reprisals.

c. Captured individuals should not discuss sensitive aspects of the work of their fellow hostages. They should not divulge classified or sensitive information. They should not sign or make statements or take action which they believe might bring discredit to the United States.

d. The decision to attempt escape rests with the individual concerned. However, the decision should be consistent with the considerations set forth above.

e. Hard and fast rules are not always helpful and the U.S. Government recognizes that the ability of individuals to resist extreme pressure differs. But, to the extent possible, one must help one’s colleagues and avoid exploitation. Sound judgment is essential.

Here is also quick guidance per 2 FAH-1 H-112.3 on how to tell if employees have discretion to deviate from the instructions in the Foreign Affairs  Manual. The Foreign Affairs Handbook instructs FAM drafters that “information must be clear, and the discretion of the reader to deviate from instructions must be clear.” Level of discretion is to be described by the use of three auxiliary verbs: “must,” “should,” and “may.”

(1) Mandatory:  “Must” is used to advise the reader that he or she has no discretion to deviate from the instructions. In some cases, the reader will have no discretion, but another person or entity can grant authority to deviate from the instruction. If that’s the case, the person with authority and the circumstances under which the authority may be exercised is identified (by title) or office (by name/symbol);

(2) Recommended: “Should” is used to advise the reader that the instruction is the Department’s preferred approach. However, the word “should” permits the reader to deviate if the reader can accomplish the objective in another way. FAM drafters are told to “clearly specify how much discretion the reader has, and advise the reader if he or she must justify any deviations. Use the term “recommended” if you believe the word “should” will not convey these points adequately in the context of the sentence. Either define the word “should” or hyperlink to this definition at the beginning of subchapters in which the word appears.”

(3) Advisory:  “May” is used to advise the reader that he or she has the option to pursue alternative courses of action. “May” is used when neither law, regulation, nor management policy dictates which of several options to follow.

#

Required Reading on Hostage Cases: And when not/not to write, “Please enjoy your day!”

Posted: 3:39 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Lawrence Wright is an author, screenwriter, playwright, and a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. He is the author of eight books, including The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which spent eight weeks on The New York Times best seller list and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction.  Last month, he wrote a piece about the civilian effort to save the five ISIS hostages.

Excerpt:

The State Department appointed Carrie Greene, in the Office of Overseas Citizens Services, to be a liaison with the families. She seemed impatient with their independent investigations. “You really shouldn’t be talking to these terrorists,” she warned. “It’s against the law.” Viva Hardigg responded, “Excuse me, Carrie, but we are well acquainted with U.S. laws, and if someone you love is being held by terrorists, with whom else should you talk?” Greene ended her e-mails with “Please enjoy your day!”

When Peter Kassig was kidnapped, his parents got a call from a State Department official. Paula recalls, “She basically said, ‘We know your son has been taken in Syria. We don’t have an embassy in Syria. We don’t have people on the ground in Syria. We don’t have a diplomatic relationship with them, so we can’t do anything to help you.’ ” In May, 2014, the families had a joint meeting with Daniel Rubinstein, a special envoy appointed to handle affairs in Syria. “He was nice, but when we asked how to contact him we were told not to e-mail or phone him,” Diane Foley says. In order to talk with him on the phone, the families had to travel to a local F.B.I. office, so an agent could dial Rubinstein’s number for them.

#