WhirledView

No Comment

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Sometimes “no comment” really is the best response to a tough question from the media regarding a seemingly difficult and sensitive situation.  Sometimes, however, it is not.  Especially when a more than two-syllable response is 1) actually not all that difficult to formulate and 2) when something appropriate can be uttered in response. 

 I was struck over the Memorial Day Weekend by the State Department’s refusal to comment on two entirely separate cases both regarding employees – the first was a refusal to respond to media queries regarding the strange and unsettling apparent suicide of US Embassy Barbados Regional Security Officer George Gaines whose body was found at White Sands Beach early May 12.

The second was to a question from  Lisa Rein of The Washington Post about a letter to the Department from the American Civil Liberties Union that stated that the Department was violating Peter Van Buren’s constitutional rights by trying to fire him.  Van Buren is the author of the controversial and critical book “We Meant Well” on US post conflict operations in Iraq, stories based on his own experiences.  With the ACLU now in the legal picture, this case could be headed for the Supreme Court.  The ACLU, I’m told, selects its cases carefully.

I realize the Van Buren case is exceedingly complex and must be devilishly jarring to State’s administrative staff especially those who work in the Offices of Human Resources and Legal Affairs.  Just think of all those human resource specialists and lawyers who must be focusing on ways to “get” the controversial Van Buren rather than assign people to jobs or read over the texts of treaties with other countries before agreement.  What is more important after all? Making someone’s life insufferable or actually doing something that would defend the interests of the US?

The ACLU suit in support of Van Buren

Since a high profile law suit is in the works as a result of the ACLU’s decision to take State on and Van Buren still draws his salary even though he has been barred from the building and told to work from home, I suppose a “no comment” from a State Department Press Spokesperson to the Washington Post reporter is the better part of valor.  No use muddying the legal waters unnecessarily.

Had, of course, State not screwed up this case so badly from the get-go there would be no law suit, Van Buren’s book would have come out next year (after his retirement in September) to short lived acclaim  and State would have had a hard time harassing Van Buren and attempting to fire him based on – would you believe – the fact that he linked to Wikileaks from his blog because the cables on Wikileaks are, according to the Department, still classified and its employees forbidden to access them either from their office or home computers.

Now everyone else in the world with an Internet connection has access to those cables – except the people who actually wrote them.  This, however, does not seem to bother State’s Diplomatic Security Office – or maybe it’s Public Affairs - one wit.  This approach, however, is fighting a losing battle – and certainly not one to use as the rationale for firing an employee who apparently included nothing classified in his book and is nearing the Department’s exit anyway.  All the kerfuffle has done is to turn him into a kind of counter-culture cult hero for those who have had reservations about the US presence in Iraq anyway.  I’m waiting for the movie or maybe a television series. Wonder who Hollywood will cast as Van Buren?

In contrast, the Department’s response to the Barbados case is just plain bizarre.  As Domani Spero at Diplopundit points out that when an officer was murdered on Cyprus in 2007, the US Embassy  – almost immediately - issued a thoughtful and sensitive tribute to his family which the public affairs section, posted – among other places - on the Embassy website.

Beware the Tides of Greek Political Extremism

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Maybe Greece never should have become a member of the EURO-zone.  But it did.  Or maybe the EURO-zone should have been structured far differently so that it could deal with problematic states and regions such as Greece through transfers not loans. But this didn’t happen.

Maybe Greece’s political leaders should have behaved far more responsibly – immediately implementing at least major reforms that the Troika told them needed to be done two plus years ago to right the ailing economy. But they didn’t begin in earnest until a caretaker government took power November 11, 2011.  The domestic political and economic costs were simply too painful for either of the two mainstream parties that have dominated the country's politics for years.

Maybe the Troika and Germany should not have declared that the May 6 election was one that would determine whether Greece would stay in the EU, a claim also made by the two major Greek political parties that have alternated in power.  But it and they did.   

Maybe the exasperated Germans should not have come across as imperialist overlords to the Greek populace – perceptions are important in a country’s psyche – but that happened too.   That shrillness has resulted in untoward international consequences propelling what could and should have been contained as an internal EURO-zone dispute.

Instead the handling of the dispute has unsettled, once again, worldwide financial markets.  Yet Greece’s economy, after all, represents only 2.5% of the Euro-zone total and is dwarfed by all the others.     

And maybe the Greeks – and non-Greeks with capital in Greek banks should not be withdrawing their savings at a rate akin to a run on the banks.  An average of $5.1 billion dollars has been flowing out of Greece every month since 2009 when the debt crisis first broke and since the May 6 elections, Greeks have “pulled nearly $900 million in savings from their banks,” according to the May 17, New York Times.  

In whose interest is it?

But is it really in anyone’s interest – and this includes Germany, the rest of Europe and the US - for the country and its people to be treated the way they have been over the past two years and not expect untoward and dangerous political repercussions in the country?

Long Memories

Memories may be short elsewhere, but they’re not in Greece.  It’s not that history is doomed to repeat itself, hopefully people learn from history’s mistakes and don’t repeat them, but when the political center hollows out as has just happened the radical fringes rise to the fore.  Twentieth century Greek history, after all, alternated between democracy, right wing military coups and a nasty Civil War that followed a brutal Nazi occupation.

America's Asian Pivot

By Patricia H. Kushlis

At the Santa Fe World Affairs Forum’s symposium “Our World in Ferment” on April 17, China expert and Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute for US-China Relations Douglas Spelman described the change in US policy direction in Asia over the past 18 months as more of a pivot towards Southeast Asia as opposed to one directed at the continent’s North where US attention has been fairly constant, and intense, for some time.

On the April 23 international news, a BBC correspondent reporting from the island of Palawan near where US and Filipino forces were engaged in Balikatan, the bilateral annual war game exercises held under the Mutual Defense Treaty, reported on the heating up of military tensions between China and the Philippines over who controls what in the South China Sea.  An aside: Palawan is an island where I once spent a week at a charming ecotourism resort a year after the US bases had been kicked out of the Philippines by one vote in the Philippine Senate.

Believe me, the reporter has a pretty cushy observation perch from which to observe military exercises as well as snorkel on the side.  

A Chinese Lake?  Maybe not

The Chinese consider the South China Sea a Chinese lake – made more valuable through exploration by international companies for likely oil and gas under the seabed.  Palawan is, by the way, just south of the South China Sea. A BBC report argues that it is precisely because the Filipinos and Vietnamese have signed contracts with international companies to explore for those riches in the disputed territorial waters they claim as their own that set the Chinese off.

The area in contention is called Scarborough Shoal. The Schoal lies within the broader area known as the Spratly Islands, tiny basically uninhabited dots in the sea.    

The rationale for the US pivot towards Southeast Asia has centered on keeping the sea lanes open. This is part of long standing US security policy in the region. What’s new is the Chinese challenge to it. Most of the shipping to North Asia passes through the Straits of Malacca then northward through the South China Sea.  The claims by Asian nations for control of their pieces of this sea bed off the coasts of southern China, Vietnam and the Philippines have been fuses waiting for a match for years. 

With China’s economic rise, it’s increasingly heavy handed approach to Southeast Asia has become more pronounced.  On the one hand, Chinese leverage is major in the areas of trade and economics where China has become the region’s dominant trading partner.  This is not necessarily bad for the US.  When I lived in Southeast Asia in the early 1990s, the Japanese were economically dominant in the region but that trade dominance did not negatively impinge upon the freedom of navigation through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore or the South China Sea.             

On the other hand, a deeply held fear of China’s growing security desires has sent ASEAN governments scurrying to find protection from other big powers further away.  The US is the obvious choice despite a residue of anti-American anti-colonialism in the Philippines and the mistakes of the Vietnam War – both of which seem to have been all but forgotten or at least, in the face of their larger concern, brushed under the carpet for now.

The State of State: Joan's Case Continued

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Remember Joan Wadelton’s long running battle against the State Department’s Bureau of Human Resources that I reported here on March 14, 2012?

In case you missed it, the post is well worth reading. But I understand that lots of people did read it because I know that the post entitled “State Department Human Resources – A System Run Amok” circulated widely throughout the State Department, at US Embassies, Consulates and Missions abroad as well as elsewhere. 

It is just the latest in a series of WhirledView posts over the last four years on corruption in State's personnel system.  I understand that people forwarded it to friends and colleagues.  It was also picked up by other blogs with a substantial number of readers throughout the State Department, on the Hill and elsewhere in the foreign affairs and defense communities.

Private comments have come from readers at the e-mail address I included at the end of the “Run Amok” post. The most recent response (April 24) was a poignant recounting of continuing nepotism in State’s HR system.  As I promised in that post, I continue to assure confidentiality to anyone who writes me privately. However, I feel secure in highlighting here some of the major themes that have emerged:

-- All respondents believed what I wrote -- not a single person has tried to rebut anything in the post (or any of my previous posts on the topic);

-- Respondents were horrified by Joan's story and expressed sympathy for her and outrage against her treatment;

-- Several sent me stories about their own problems with State HR.  I cannot corroborate the problems or the stories but every one is consistent with what my own separate investigations have uncovered;

-- The single most troubling discovery about State's Office of Inspector General is that rather than engaging in benign neglect – or better yet showing complete impartiality as should be the case -- the OIG comes across as an active and malignant presence in investigations of individual claims against HR’s behavior.  This is reinforced by allegations that the OIG's practice of reporting the names of complainants about HR to HR management – rather than to investigate their charges or simply keep the individual’s confidentiality -- has also occurred with complaints filed in other Bureaus.

Joan is not alone.

Reckoning with Russia

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Well before Vladimir Putin’s formal re-relection to the Russian Presidency earlier this month, the Russian foreign policy machine vociferously complained and continuously whined about western interference in Russia’s internal politics.  The foreign policy line emanating from the top was designed to play upon deeply held Russian popular angst of intervention by foreign powers.

As a part of Putin’s election campaign, he charged that the West had launched a nefarious campaign to undermine his candidacy as well as Russian political institutions in order, presumably, to weaken and perhaps destroy the country.

These charges are now being aimed at Michael McFaul, President Obama’s new activist US Ambassador to Moscow who is being targeted in a Russian domestic propaganda campaign by the Putin controlled Russian media for meeting with dissidents.

Propagating the Kremlin line 

Unfortunately, this very same Kremlin anti-western interference line has been bought and is being propagated by individuals in the American media.  The accusation is being framed as an either/or dichotomy – the kind Western media love to broadcast because, well a simple dichotomy is understandable to their average reader.

Former Business Week Moscow correspondent Paul Starobin made this case during a March 29 talk at the Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston.  But Starobin is not the only western journalist to buy into the Kremlin “us-or-them” line – and that’s not the only part of Putin’s foreign policy line that Starobin ascribes to either.

The gist of the argument is that if the US wants to have good relations with Russia, it needs to cease and desist contacts with and support for Russian pro-democracy activists.

US Does a Great Job of Repelling Tourists

 By Patricia H. Kushlis

Several years ago, I attended a meeting in Washington, DC in which two representatives of the Commerce Department’s Travel and Tourism Office bemoaned the fact that it took forever for US Consulates to issue tourist visas.  And as a result, they said, the US was losing substantial tourist revenues to countries which were far more international travel friendly.  Appointment times for such US Consulate interviews llagged 60 days or more and the visas themselves were expensive.

The meeting I attended was devoted to the question of how America’s image abroad could be improved. The two women from Commerce sensibly suggested that reducing the visa issuance time might help.   Unfortunately, this was still too close to the 9/11 hysteria and the build up of Homeland Security to have been taken seriously. 

In 2008, I had to ask for special assistance from Senator Tom Udall’s (NM) office so that the maid of honor in my son’s wedding could make it to the wedding.  It was highly unlikely the maid of honor would not have qualified for a visa – she had just worked in the US for six years but had moved to London to take another professional level job.  Thanks to Udall’s office she did in fact get the appointment.  The visa was issued almost immediately after the interview.

But without the Senator’s staff’s intervention that forced the recalcitrant US Consulate to move the appointment date up to before, not after the wedding, the maid of honor would have been missing.  This would have been particularly ironic since the wedding was held at DACOR, a private organization of US diplomats and consular officers.  

The good news is that the Senator’s intervention made all the difference in the world.  The bad news is that it shouldn’t have been needed – if the State Department had only figured out its staffing requirements and then filled the positions.  But then management is not its forte.

On Sunday March 18, 2012 The New York Times carried an Op Ed by airline pilot Mark Vanhoenacker entitled “How Not to Attract Tourists.”  The pilot’s complaint focused on the absurd ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) requirement whereby tourists from tourist waiver countries still have to complete this special form several days before travel. As Venhoenacker describes it, the form asks unnecessarily intrusive questions that delve into the prospective traveler’s personal life and habits – some of which they’ve already supplied on other forms.

It also requires the individual to fork over $14 to Uncle Sam not only for completing and filing the ESTA form but also for the privilege of standing in unnecessarily long lines only to be greeted by surly US immigration and customs officials after having endured a multi-hour flight in a packed sardine can because there are not enough US government officials on duty.  Then there are the separate Customs Forms which are equally as loony.  What’s this about importing snails?

I had read about the $14 fee when it was introduced and thought at the time "that’s great" – now all the other countries will follow suit - slapping on putative fees for visiting Americans.  I don’t think most have – they know that American tourists bring in far more cash than the lousy $14 fee.  Ironically, $10 of the ESTA tax goes to “visit America” ad campaigns. 

Far better that it go to hiring more immigration and consular officers.

 

 

State Department Human Resources -- A System Run Amok

By Patricia H. Kushlis

I have been writing about corruption and cronyism in the State Department's Human Resources Bureau for the last several years .

My reporting has consistently led to one conclusion -- that State's personnel system -- which affects both Civil and Foreign Service employees -- has run amok.  Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the case of Joan Wadelton.

Several years ago, a mutual friend introduced me to Joan, a veteran career Foreign Service Officer.  My friend knew that I had written several posts about the State Department’s mistreatment of its human capital and the dysfunctional personnel system that has been behind it.  He also knew that Joan had been quietly, patiently and relentlessly fighting the Department’s Bureau of Human Resources in an effort to save her career for years.

Joan’s troubles began in 2000.  That was 12 years ago.  Her case is complicated.  I have followed its macabre twists and turns since 2008.  They never cease to amaze.  I have not written about them until now, however, because Joan preferred that her story remain private -- she had hoped to settle quietly -- until, that is, now.

The Russian Elections: Promises, Promises

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Vladimir Putin’s win on Sunday ensured that the ex-KBG officer was reelected to the country’s presidency by a wide margin.  One large enough – by nearly 63.4% - that Putin will not have to stand for the office in a run off.

Having re-secured the office and crowned himself president again a position  he could now hold well into his dotage how much will Putin's return to the helm (if he even ever really left it) be likely to cost the country because of his electoral promises?

Here’s how Reuter’s analyst Jason Bush put it on March 5:

“Putin, who received 64 percent of the vote with nearly all ballots counted, shored up his base by throwing money at everything from nuclear missiles to kindergartens, making the overburdened budget more dependent than ever on oil prices.

The 59-year-old premier, returning to the Kremlin for a third term has put the cost of promised public sector pay rises at 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) - around $30 billion per annum - in the coming years.

When the other new social spending commitments are added, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told Reuters, the full cost may be up to 2 percent of GDP each year. A ministry source says privately that the figure could reach 3 percent by 2018.

An independent assessment by London-based consultancy Capital Economics calculates the total bill for election-related promises will be even higher, reaching 4.8 trillion roubles ($165 billion) per annum, or 4-5 percent of GDP, by 2018.”  

Now this may not become a problem if the international price of oil and gas stay high – or move higher.  If they drop, however, the Russian Treasury will enter the red ink zone with all the instability that this can produce.  The ruble, after all, is not a reserve currency.

There is another option:  Putin, of course, could break his electoral promises.  Broken electoral promises are rather common occurances.  It would be easiest to do this in the countryside where stolid Russians are among his strongest supporters.  The residents of large cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg are different.  And Moscow, of course, is where the anti-Putin protests have been centered.   

The rounding up of the opposition leaders – some 230 according to sources I’ve read – is certainly not new.  Clearly Putin’s election machinations continued despite all the webcams the Russian Electoral Commission installed at the polling stations.  Nice idea – but the electoral fraud reported went way beyond the polls themselves.  A narrow candidate field in which Putin ran against people he was sure to beat – does not a free and fair election make.  

Arresting the opposition is not exactly the path towards true democratic government.  Obviously Putin decided that it was far better to hold onto power – by hook or by crook – than to allow Russia to enter the 20^th century. 

Repression by force results in bad government and a weak economy. 

One of Russia’s worst problems is the lack of justice for private property owners.  This extends to international companies.  Until and unless this blight on democracy is rectified, Russia will always be tied to the international petroleum market despite the best efforts of the many talented people who live and work there.

For the moment, at least, world oil and gas prices are rising primarily due to tighter sanctions on Iran.  The Russians may oppose the sanctions but in reality they bolster Russian economic interests.  An attack on Iran would reduce the Iranian petroleum production even further and the closure of the Straits of Hormuz would send oil and gas prices into the heavens.

Since Russia is the largest exporter of oil, its influence on that price would balloon. Because Russia plays crude national security politics with its natural resources chances are its political influence worldwide would also increase.  Russians, after all, are taught to think strategically - so don’t assume this hasn’t been part of the government’s calculations.

Is this, however, really in America’s best interests?  I don’t think so.  All the more reason not to attack Iran.