WhirledView

Diplomacy Lesson from the Past - Kathryn Wasserman Davis

By Patricia H Kushlis

Kathryn Wasserman Davis died at 106 on April 23, 2013. No cause for her demise was reported although it was reported that she was a strong supporter of environmental causes.

Kathryn Davis came from a line of women’s rights activists and internationalists. Among her earliest memories were those of her suffragette mother demonstrating in downtown Philadelphia for the women’s right to vote. True, I read that in her Wikipedia biography but Mrs. Davis also told me the story herself and if my memory serves, she proudly showed me a black and white photo of her mother’s political activism in action.

Had Mrs. Davis been of my generation, I have to wonder if she would have retained her Republican identification: her viewpoint and that of today’s Republican Party seem so antithetical.

Swiss interlude

From 1969-1975 Katheryn Davis’ husband Shelby Cullom Davis was US Ambassador to Switzerland, a country where the couple had first met as university students. He made his fortune in the financial insurance business on Wall Street turning a considerable sum of money from his wife’s family into considerably more. Presumably he bought the Ambassadorship through donations to the Nixon for President Campaign. That’s how those positions happen. The Davis’s knew the right people and well, money would have likely quietly changed hands moving from their considerable assets to the campaign’s seemingly effortlessly.

I never had the impression, however, that Ambassador Davis was simply after the title or that he wanted to run things at Jubeläiumstrasse 93. More likely both he and his wife had a long standing love affair with the country, wanted access to the people who mattered and simply liked the upper class Swiss life style. He had a strong career deputy named Richard Vine who later returned as Ambassador. Davis left the running of the embassy to Vine as well as dealing with the Swiss on substantive issues (the main one being banking secrecy – my how things don’t change).

From one Canton to the next

So the Ambassador and Mrs. Davis traveled the country – from one canton to another – showing the stars and stripes as the Viet Nam War wound down and meeting and greeting local officials, members of the general citizenry as well as patting the heads of the farmers’ well kept cows.

When in Bern, the Davises were gracious and generous hosts and kind to Embassy staff.

I wonder had Mrs. Davis been born just two or three decades later whether she would have pursued her own career – either as a career diplomat (she had the background – including a stint at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and a PhD in international relations from the University of Geneva - and the intelligence to do so) or in the private sector - not just as helpmate to and source of investment capital for her husband. At least, she would have had the choice.

Can the Foreign Service Reform Itself? If so how and where to begin?

By Patricia H. Kushlis

I have been documenting serious problems with the State Department’s approach to its most precious resource, its human capital since January 23, 2008. These problems, in reality, began well before 2008. This post “Can the Foreign Service Reform Itself?” has been added to the ever lengthening – now nearly book-length – list entitled “The Troubled State of State” affixed to WhirledView’s top left sidebar.

There have been various institutional arrangements established to mitigate the human resources problems at the State Department. Too many of these arrangements are in desperate need of change. One is the pressing need for an Inspector General as Secretary Kerry has recently and rightly stated. Another is the fundamental reform of an institution called the Foreign Service Grievance Board where too often Foreign Service personnel disputes are sent for resolution.

The following recommendations on reform of this board are by an experienced Foreign Service Officer currently caught up in State’s human resources labyrinth. The officer outlines weaknesses of this board and suggests ways they can be mitigated.

As the author rightly points out, “we owe it to ourselves and our country to ensure that, as we promote workers’ rights and respect for the rule of law around the world, our internal governance reflects our values.” Clearly, I think the State Department falls far short. This thoughtful analysis and its recommendations need a considered and careful read:

Fixing the Foreign Service Grievance Process: Seven Simple Reforms

The Foreign Service grievance process, as currently constituted, is crippled by illogical, unnecessarily complex procedures and structural conflicts of interest.

This must change. We owe it to the Foreign Service community to put in place a user-friendly process that resolves disputes quickly, equitably and with dignity. We owe it to the American taxpayer to stop the current system’s massive waste of human and financial resources. And we owe it to ourselves and our country to ensure that, as we promote workers’ rights and respect for the rule of law around the world, our internal governance reflects our values.

Outlined below are seven areas in which the process is out of step with contemporary norms, along with common-sense reform proposals aimed at increasing both fairness and efficiency. It is my hope that these ideas can start a broader conversation aimed at establishing a grievance process that is fairer, more transparent and more efficient.

1. Mediation: resolve cases whenever possible without a formal grievance

In the private and intergovernmental sectors, and elsewhere in the Federal Government, it is common practice to try to resolve disputes quickly and amicably through the intervention of trained external mediators. This strengthens workplace morale by facilitating rapid, mutually acceptable solutions. It also saves money by averting time-consuming administrative proceedings and litigation. State offers no such option.

While the FSGB “encourages the parties to consider and engage in voluntary efforts to settle the case” and offers the services of one of its members to serve as a mediator “[a]t the joint request of the parties,” this offer comes too late in the process to make a difference: after the aggrieved employee has filed a formal grievance with the Department, received an adverse response, and filed an appeal with the Board. If mediation is to work, it needs to be seen as a first, rather than a last resort.

The Department and AFSA should agree on a roster of qualified external mediators, and offer their services to employees upon request as an alternative or precursor to the grievance process. Any costs involved would be more than offset by savings realized through a decreased grievance workload.

2. Objectivity: remove responsibility for initial adjudication of grievances from the Bureau for Human Resources

The Department’s Grievance Staff, which adjudicates employee grievances, sits within the Bureau for Human Resources, which exercises direct responsibility over the vast majority of “grievable” actions and decisions. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest: grievance attorneys who “review” impugned HR decisions report to the same Director General under whose authority those decisions were taken in the first place.

This discourages accountability, and encourages costly and time consuming defenses of even obviously erroneous decisions. Responsibility for the initial adjudication of grievances should be transferred to the Office of the Legal Advisor, or to a special office established under the direct authority of the Secretary.

3. Segregation: Separate responsibility for adjudicating grievances from responsibility for defending the Department’s position

A further conflict of interest is the dual (or even triple) role played by the HR Grievance Staff. The same official who oversees the initial investigation and adjudication of a grievance then turns around and represents the Department when that same case comes before the FSGB. The need to build a case with a view to an eventual defense before the Board represents an insurmountable conflict of interest, which prevents the Grievance Staff from serving as a truly objective finder of fact in the initial adjudication of the grievance. The investigation/adjudication and advocacy functions should be clearly segregated, and assigned to different offices. Ex parte communications between those offices should be strictly prohibited.

4. Perspective: Reconstitute the Foreign Service Grievance Board to eliminate the perception of bias and ensure a broader interpretation of “the Department’s interest.”

 The members of the FSGB, while appointed by the Secretary, are recruited by the Bureau for Human Resources, and the Board includes many retired Foreign Service Officers with extensive experience in the HR Bureau. While the Board’s members, individually, may adhere to the highest standards of personal integrity, this practice as a whole, like the placement of the Grievance Staff in HR, perpetuates at least the perception of bias in favor of Department management. Ideally, grievance panels should be composed of distinguished jurists and/or labor relations experts with no direct links to State HR (in most other systems, HR experts are available to the board in an advisory capacity, but do not sit as voting members). Each panel should include an AFSA representative, specifically charged with ensuring that the rights of the grievant are respected throughout the process.

5. Expeditiousness: Shorten procedural timelines, and institute a fast-track procedure for time-urgent cases

On Dealing with the Hermit Kingdom

By Patricia H Kushlis

Does North Korea’s leadership belong in the madhouse or Alcatraz as so many of our right wing politicians, militarists and some journalists seem to suggest?  Or are they behaving as sanely – at least from their perspective - as their accusers?  Is there something important going on in Pyongyang that is overlooked here that should be considered?

I attended an excellent two-day Santa Fe World Affairs Forum symposium on US-East Asian relations at St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New Mexico early last week:  The North Korean nuclear threat, China’s capabilities and future intentions, reasons for Myanmar’s immense political changes and the overall ramifications of the changing face of Asia for US interests were at the top of the agenda.

Several years ago, then President George W Bush labeled North Korea – as well as Iran – as the Axis of Evil. This reversed Bill Clinton’s softer line that may or may not have been making progress towards some kind of normalization of relations with the Hermit Kingdom.  If such a sea change were to happen, our military presence in North Asia could and should be reduced substantially. This in itself is likely a flashing yellow light for those in the defense industry who profit from a continued state of high military readiness in the region not just those in Pyongyang but also our own in Washington.

No one, however, has ever satisfactorily explained to me the reasons for Pyongyang’s peculiar actions or what might induce its secretive leaders to change course.  In essence, the Hermit Kingdom has been brushed off as the proverbial enigma wrapped in a mystery - without further thought or examination.

Political Science 101

But put away the swords and the blinders for the moment and go back to the basics:  The first axiom of politics is a leader’s (or collective leadership’s) determination to remain in power.  That’s lesson one, political science 101.   In Pyongyang, the transfer of power is dynastic.  The country may call itself socialist, workers or communist but in reality it is governed through an age old form of familial leadership based on an historic Asian dynastic model.  Moreover, over the years, the North Korean dynasty has been propped up by the country’s military with China’s acquiesce and sometimes more.

I once had a Burmese cat named Cleo who spent the first two weeks of our assignment to Athens with her nose pointed into a back corner of a shelf in our bedroom closet.  I suppose she must have come out when no one was looking because she clearly used the litter box and ate her favorite food.  She ultimately resurfaced but only after we moved to a garden apartment which allowed her to explore the garden at will sitting for hours soaking up the Greek sun.

Fear of the unknown had much to do with Cleo’s behavior in that temporary apartment just as it’s plausible that fear of being dethroned (or possibly worse – think Ceaceşcu in December 1989) has been a likely motivating factor for North Korea’s seemingly irrational behavior since the country was established in the wake of the Korean War.  This flashed through my brain when one of the experts at the conference in describing the unique characteristics of the North Korean propaganda barrage pointed out that the country’s threats always concluded with the phrase: “if the Americans attack.”  But the speaker added that these four final words are not reported in the media or government statements we see in the West. 

Living in Challenging Times: the US and East Asia

 

LIVING IN CHALLENGING TIMES: THE UNITED STATES & EAST ASIA
a two-day symposium

April 8-9, 2013
St. John’s College, Santa Fe, New Mexico

sponsored by

SANTA FE WORLD AFFAIRS FORUM
Co-sponsors: U.N.M. Center for Science, Technology & Policy
Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations, American Foreign Service Association & St. John’s College

DAY ONE:  2-6 pm: Registration; “East Asia and the Pacific:  Issues and Challenges,” Ambassador Will Itoh, Director, Washington International Programs, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Senior Advisor, McLarty Associates ; “North Asia and the Korea Conundrum,” Dr. Chris Nelson, Vice President of Samuels International, Washington, D.C.; Cocktail reception for speakers and Symposium participants.

DAY TWO: 9:15 am -4:00 pm: Registration; “China as a Rising Power Seeking its Rightful Place,” Dr. Suisheng Zhao, Director of the Center for U.S.-China Cooperation, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver; “The Chinese Military Machine,” Dennis Blasko, author “The Chinese Army Today: Tradition and Transformation” (Routledge 2012) and former US military attaché Beijing; talk on “Is the Myanmar Exuberance Irrational -- and whatever happened to Vietnam?,” Ms. Frances Zwenig, President, U.S.-ASEAN Business Council Institute, Inc.; wind-up panel.  Full buffet luncheon for speakers and Symposium participants.

All sessions will be followed by generous discussion periods.

PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS:  Friendship Force, Albuquerque Council on International Visitors, Public Diplomacy Alumni Association, University of New Mexico’s International Studies Institute, University of New Mexico’s National Security Studies Program, Public Diplomacy Council, Women’s Voices, American Association of University Women – Santa Fe Branch, & Fulbright Association of New Mexico.  

FEES & REGISTRATION: Both days: $70 members; $85 non-members; $30 students; 4/8 only: $40; 4/9 only: $50.  To reserve a place please e-mail waforum@gmail.com.  Symposium fees may be paid with your credit card using our Paypal account. You may access Paypal directly by clicking on this link or you may send your check to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe. NM, 87594, with your name and contact information, if you are not a member.  Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum.  Please note on your check that payment is for the April 2013 symposium.  Your payment guarantees you a place, but it is non-refundable after Wednesday, April 4, if you are unable to attend.

 

Please tell the RNC - It’s the message, not the media

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Two weeks ago Friday, David Brooks – upon learning that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 7.7% in February with over 200,000 new jobs added – told Judy Woodward on the Newshour that if one combined the good jobs news with the bad sequestration news the US was experiencing the norm:  because the business cycle works independently from politics – and there is little, if anything, politicians can do to make the economy grow.  Essentially, Brooks argued that the economic growth of this country was out of its politicians’ hands.

This is certainly not the first time I’ve heard the politics/economics disconnect argument, but I wonder about its’ accuracy.  I also wonder if a Republican, not a Democrat, had been in the White House whether we would have heard Brooks’ pontification in such reverentially canonic terms.

The deep economic recession this country entered in 2007 as a result of poorly regulated banks and financial institutions that brought about the housing bubble, Lehman’s demise and the stock market collapse might well have been avoided had those pesky government regulations and regulators remained in place.  Furthermore, had this country not been spending zillions of dollars (something like $8 trillion and counting) to fight two wars in the Middle East simultaneously – one entered into on spurious grounds and the other which could have been handled more smartly, efficiently and cheaply from the outset through far more limited and targeted action – the US government would have had an easier time applying Keynesian economic principles when (and if) the economic seas became rough because the Treasury would not have had to borrow so deeply or the Federal Reserve go through such contortions to keep the economy from total collapse.

Keynes

British economist John Maynard Keynes, the right-wing’s bête noir and guru of the left, argued in the 1930s that governments needed to run deficits to keep the unemployed from starving or freezing to death so as to get through the rough patches when a country’s economy tanked.  Whereas governments needed to recoup, regroup and run a budgetary surplus when the private sector economy hummed along on all four cylinders.   Unfortunately, George W Bush, the most recent of America’s over-spenders, forgot – or never knew - the second part of Keynes’ prescription as he operated the US economy on a war footing for most of his two year term that ended in the “Great Recession” debacle.

The British government under the Coalition has also forgotten – or actually it has intentionally thumbed its nose at Keynes despite his British origins.  Most recently the British economy took a hit from the debt rating agencies because, in essence, its austerity programs have failed.  Why?  Sometimes it’s necessary to pump prime to get an economy moving again so that a country can grow its way out of recession.  It’s not all that counter-intuitive. Really.

Is the UK economy in transient Recession or indefinite decline?

 By John Charles Dyer, UK Correspondent 

20 March 2013 Chancellor George Osborne announced his 2013 Budget to Parliament. He also announced the economic forecasts that affected it.  As aptly characterized by the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, estimates of economic growth and government revenues are down, borrowing is up and there is precious little in the budget to address the ailing economy.  On the contrary, the Chancellor argued that the failure of the plan proves its necessity. He even argued it is beginning to work. 

Subsequently the independent Office for Budget Responsibility held a press conference to elaborate on the detail of those forecasts. The forecasts are dismal, but one should remember, the forecasts have proven in the past to be over optimistic. Their announcement proved a cannon shot in an echo chamber.   

Others in the days ahead will examine these forecasts and the budget in detail. I expect it will be some time before analysts have dissected the fine print. I want to focus on one set of figures that I believe may not only undercut the Chancellor’s few more optimistic assertions but raise a fundamental question about the UK economy.  

Is the UK economy experiencing a transient Recession or is it in indefinite decline?  

Shortly after the Chancellor’s presentation the Office of National Statistics replied to my latest Freedom of Information Request.   

One set of figures leapt out.  Comparing the last quarter of 2008 to the last quarter of 2012, ONS estimates employment among people aged 16 or older increased only 402,000 from 29,328,000 to 29,730,000.  

This figure certainly seems to be out of synch with the Chancellor’s claim that the private sector alone had created 1,25 million new jobs since the election.  I have in at least 4 previous articles addressed how misleading were the government’s often repeated prior claims that the private sector had created 1 million new jobs since the election. I won’t repeat all that here. Suffice it to say that ONS could not and would not confirm 1 million “new” private sector “jobs.” Moreover, even a brief review of the detail readily available through ONS shows wishful thinking the hopes of those who suggest - as the Chancellor repeated today- increased “in employment” stats are signs the economy is healing and the government on the right track.  

Of more fundamental importance is an associated statistic.  The percentage of people over aged 16 in employment fell between the last quarter of 2008 and the last quarter of 2012, from 59.6 percent of the population to 58.7 percent.  The economy provides employment to a smaller percentage of the working age population. 

The New Great Game? Russia, China and Central Asia

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Throughout the Gorbachev years and before, the Soviet Union’s five Central Asian Republics (otherwise known as the -stans) were the strongest supporters of the Soviet Union.  When the collapse came, they were also the least prepared for independence politically or economically.  Prior to their forced assimilation into the Russian Empire in the 19th century, they had been Turkic or Persian speaking Muslim khanates with all that they entailed.

As part of the Soviet Union, a kind of modernization was brought to the region.  Women were freed of the veil – sometimes forcibly - and required to go to school.   They still, however, often produced large families – and when the Soviets sought “hero” mothers with 14 or so children to deify, the authorities turned to the Central Asians because few, if any Russians, Slavs, Balts or Moldovans, met the numeric requirements.

Meanwhile, Moscow used Central Asians as wartime cannon fodder and conscript brigades were sent to repair Moscow’s streets, water and sewer systems. Stalin divided the khanates into republics fractionalizing the ethnicities according to the best divide and rule policies of the time – an historic fact of life that continues to prove an irritant to amicable relations among and within the republics thereby causing friction and instability domestically and providing a convenient way for Russians and others to manipulate the five largely authoritarian countries to their advantage.   

What is perhaps less generally known is that by the 1970s the Soviets regularly transferred wealth from the European parts of the Union to Central Asia to keep the Central Asians materially satisfied so that the Russians and other Slavs could continue to rule the vast region and its resources unchallenged.  They also controlled the republics through a "second in command" system (namely by placing a Central Asian to the top position and a ethnic Russian as deputy.)

Furthermore, for the most part, the Soviets kept the Central Asians isolated.  Strict travel and emigration restrictions meant that they had little contact with the West, could not establish residency in the prestige cities of Moscow and Leningrad and their only bases for comparison – if they had them at all – were India, Pakistan and Afghanistan – countries most directly to their south.

Of the Central Asian republics, only Kazakhstan has produced substantial petroleum.  So it’s no surprise that today this republic remains the richest of the five. And by 1991, it’s quite likely that a majority of the republic’s population was Slavic – if not Russian – despite what the then census claimed.

The other Central Asian republics had basically been caravan stops on the ubiquitous Silk Road with multiple branches that ran from eastern China to Istanbul from the Middle Ages onward although Uzbekistan's cotton crop was prized within the Soviet Union itself.    

"Voting Against Freedom"

In Joshua Kucera’s article, “Voting Against Freedom,” in the Winter 2013 Wilson Quarterly, the author seeks to answer the question as to why democracy has failed in the former Soviet Union – with the exception of the Baltic Republics and Moldova – and criticizes the Clinton State Department and Obama Administration for pretending that democracy building there remains a realistic goal for US foreign policy. 

Sequester’s Silver Lining: Limits to Defense Spending

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Maybe there is a silver lining to the latest Washington impasse between the President and Congressional Republicans.  The sequester – which began this weekend - hasn’t yet caused the financial markets to behave like Pogo but such mindless budget cuts would - if allowed to bite deep into federal government services and support to the states and private sector are drastically diminished.

I remember the last government shutdown in a bitterly cold December when we were sent home early over the Christmas holidays, the National Parks and museums were closed and the passport office stopped issuing passports.  I also remember being one of the last people in my agency to leave the building – as it grew bitterly colder because the warmth of the humans who worked there and provided the heat were no longer there.      

By large measure, the majority of Americans blame the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, not the president, for the reductions that could take effect. And sequestration has become the flavor of this month’s news reporting and commentary especially inside the Beltway but also at places like Virginia’s Hampton Roads where much of the population is supported directly or indirectly by the military.

You’d think the Republican law makers (and breakers) would remember what happened to then House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s popularity after he challenged President Bill Clinton to a budgetary duel that December years ago. But I guess not.

This is largely a new crew that marches to its own ideological drum – led by chief drum major Grover Norquist, right wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and other likeminded libertarians who think that government is an impediment to their pursuit of the all-mighty dollar and retention of their semi-automatics.        

But if sequestration does come to pass, it will finally dictate cuts to the bloated Pentagon which consumes a good 20 percent of this country’s expenditures.  The problem is that the cutbacks are across the board and will also hit far smaller peacetime agencies with even greater force because there’s less to cut. The so-called "entitlements", however, will apparently not be affected.

Perhaps a piece of the Republicans intransigence on defense spending is that they don't understand that the country’s first line of defense should be diplomacy not budget-busting tanks or expensive outdated weapons systems designed to challenge the invisible – far from invincible - Soviet battalions once-upon-a-time on alert at the Fulda Gap and, by-the-by, continue to enrich Lockheed-Martin and its myriad of subcontractors in the process. 

In contrast, all American diplomatic efforts – including foreign aid – come to no more that 2 percent of the national budget and the country’s diplomatic personnel totals less than all the musicians in US military bands combined.  This, in case anyone is interested, is a ratio of 20 to 2.

In an article in the January 28, 2013 New Yorker entitled “The Force: How Much Military is Enough?” Jill Lapore quotes President Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of this country’s greatest wartime generals.

Eisenhower warned in his first major speech as president which he delivered to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1953, that “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.  This is a world in arms. This world is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . This is not a way of life in any true sense.  Under the clouds of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”