Dipnote - Entries By Category http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/index/ en U.S. Department of State 2008-08-29T16:18:00-05:00 Diplomacy, Development, Defense—the Focus of the Regional Strategic Initiative About the Author: Salmah Y. Rizvi serves as the Truman Fellow in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.

In regions where economic opportunities are few, access to fair education is limited, ethnic conflict influences everyday life, and religious zeal is manipulated for corrupt purposes, extremists leaders will exploit these conditions to create what the National Intelligence Council calls a "perfect storm" -- the most efficient breeding ground for terrorists.

These malevolent non-state actors will use a variety of techniques to create safe havens -- physical space, cyber space, and ideological space in order to brainwash the most vulnerable members of society. Their missions often transcend national boundaries and their campaigns become regional. In order to combat such multifaceted approaches to terrorist infiltration, the U.S. Counterterrorism Team, specifically Regional Affairs Officers (RAOs) from the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT), must use all elements of national power to tactically implement the Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI) with the support of partner nations.

Planned in Washington, D.C., and hosted by U.S. embassies overseas, the RSI creates a flexible network of coordinated country teams, whose aim is to assist partner nations to eliminate terrorist safe havens. In Washington, S/CT RAOs interface with other intelligence and security agencies to properly assess terrorist threats in a particular region and develop a common strategic approach to counterterrorism. S/CT pools resources and tasks to generate a unified effort by the U.S. government while leveraging resources from international partners such as the G8, UN, etc. Department of State's regional bureaus and functional bureaus, such as INL, rely on S/CT's regional expertise in combating terrorism. Primarily, S/CT makes policy recommendations for various technical assistance programs which can be implemented on the ground.

One example of the RSI concept is the Southeast Asia RSI which includes Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Southeast Asia RAO, Daniel Mahanty, cited the combination of the U.S. Embassy Manila Country Team's holistic approach using the "three D's" (Diplomacy, Development, and Defense) and capacity building for other regional partners as critical to the Southeast Asia RSI concept. Mahanty elaborated: "the southern Philippines, a loosely governed area with extensive coastline access to the Sulawesi Sea, was in the throes of civil conflict and vulnerable to economic hardship, criminal activity, and natural disasters -- the kinds of conditions that transnational terrorist groups were taking advantage of to establish safe haven. Terrorists could easily transit the Sulawesi sea between the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The U.S. provided military assistance to help train the Philippines national army to root out Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiya Organization terrorists, which allowed Philipines military and police to provide security and gain the trust of the local population. More than 80% of the Embassy strategy, however, involved supporting the peace and reconciliation process between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and providing multi-sectoral development assistance to the people of the southern Philippines as areas become devoid of terrorists and supporters. At the same time, we looked for ways to support and build the capacity of other Southeast Asian nations in their own efforts to secure their borders and maintain maritime domain awareness. This regional strategy went a long way to help create an area less amenable to terrorist causes and deprived terrorists of significant safe haven and training areas -- a development with significant impact on the entire region. The idea of the RSI is to acknowledge through policy development and resource allocation that a comprehensive approach to terrorism will require all elements of national power and a regional perspective to address the conditions that terrorists exploit."

The RSI embodies a regional perspective for many of the tools of U.S. counterterrorism assistance, such as assistance to law enforcement, countering terrorism finance, building legal capacity, and promoting counterterrorism cooperation in multilateral organizations. The implementation of the RSI not only counters terrorism, but also builds credibility, good governance, and increased economic capability.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/diplomacy_development_defense_the_focus_of_the_regional_strategic_initiativ/ 2008-08-15T17:49:00-05:00 Youth Questions Lead to Environmental Action About the Author: Kathleen Eagen works in the State Department's Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science.

Today is International Youth Day, and this year's theme is appropriately titled, "Youth and Climate Change: A Time for Action."

A few weeks ago the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science, Claudia A. McMurray, spoke to a group of about 400 high school students. These kids were from a number of different countries, as well as throughout the United States, and were one of several groups this summer that have come to the State Department to hear policy speeches on the U.S. government's top issues. Assistant Secretary McMurray highlighted our Bureau's work on climate change, illegal wildlife trafficking and illegal logging. She spoke about the U.S. commitment to developing a global solution to climate change that is both environmentally effective and economically sustainable, an agreement that would include participation from all major economies, including the United States.

She also spoke about U.S. efforts to stop the illegal trade in wildlife trafficking, through the promotion of strong law enforcement and stopping the demand of these products. Finally, she addressed U.S. government's efforts to preserve the vast biodiversity of the world's forests through a number of initiatives aimed at preventing deforestation and preserving the natural environment of the world's "lungs."

When the Assistant Secretary concluded her remarks, I wondered how the students would respond. I soon learned that they were not only interested in the issues -- asking tough, probing questions -- but they also weren't afraid to voice their opinions on how the United States and the world were doing on tackling the difficult environmental questions of the day. These kids weren't just savvy about the issues, they were concerned about how the issues would create an impact on the world around them. From questions about illegal logging, to the possibilities of the future of space exploration, no environmental topic lay unturned. But perhaps the question that struck me the most was a basic one, "What can we do to help stop global warming?"

I was heartened by the questions posed by the coming generation to our Assistant Secretary. The mere fact that these students are actively engaged in thinking about the issue answers the question posed above. It's the first step. What can we do to stop global warming? Think about your impact on the world, ask tough questions, become engaged in the debate, and never stop striving to find a way forward. Perhaps it's as simple as making the decision to walk instead of driving a car or installing energy efficient lightbulbs in your home. All these small efforts can add up when the world works together to tackle this global issue.

There is no magic bullet for addressing the climate change issue. It is, by nature, complex and difficult. But that doesn't mean we can’t work to find a solution. Now, more than ever, the global community has the opportunity to work together to tackle the problem of environmental degradation and climate change. We owe it to ourselves, and the next generation, to save and preserve this Earth.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/youth_questions_environmental/ 2008-08-12T18:44:00-05:00 Secretary Rice Speaks With The Politico and Yahoo! News Full Text

From DipNote Editors: Yesterday, Secretary Rice spoke with Mike Allen of The Politico and Yahoo! News, and we thought that the DipNote crowd would also like to take a look. Their conversation covered a range of topics, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Olympics, Russia and U.S. foreign policy over the last eight years. Here's the beginning of the interview:

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you for sitting down with The Politico and Yahoo! News to talk about your accomplishments, the last eight years, and what lies ahead. You’re one of the few people who’s been along for the whole ride, so we have a lot to talk about.

We’ll start with Iran. A big deadline has passed. They were supposed to tell us if they were going to stop enriching uranium. If they don’t, they could build a bomb. Now what’s the latest on what’s going to happen? We understand that there are some new sanctions that are being considered.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, yesterday, the P5+1, the group that has offered Iran this very generous package but has also demanded that Iran stop its enrichment and reprocessing, the political directors met. They agreed that the Iranian answer is not adequate, that it is not a really serious answer. And so we’re now going to begin to consult on how to get back on the second track, which is to move again toward Security Council – toward a Security Council resolution. We’ve always said Iran has a way out if they ever wish, but we will seriously pursue sanctions if they don’t.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the time is running. Both the National Intelligence Estimate and the Israelis have said that at this rate, by 2010, they could have a nuclear weapon. Do you think that the time is coming when sanctions won’t be enough? What other sort of diplomatic, military options might we have to consider?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President keeps all of his options on the table, but we still believe that the diplomatic option can work and that there is time for it to work, because not only --

QUESTION: How much time?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don’t want to try to get into timelines. The fact is that we’re working at it every day. There is a coalition of states as well as Security Council resolutions that show the Iranians what they have to do. And we have to remember that it’s not just the Security Council resolutions, but a number of other financial measures that the United States, Europe, and others have taken, and a number of companies and banks that have gotten voluntarily out of Iran because of the reputational risk and because of the investment risk. And you have to hope that there are reasonable people in Iran who see this as not the way to run a country.

Read the continuation of the Secretary's interview with Mike Allen of The Politico and Yahoo! News.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/rice_interview_politico_and_yahoo/ 2008-08-07T18:10:00-05:00 Counterterrorism: Recovery, Justice, Prevention About the Author: Salmah Y. Rizvi serves as the Truman Fellow in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT).

During a typical work day, the Operations Directorate (Ops) of the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism is involved in the interagency coordination of international counterterrorism crises, including terrorist hostage crises. During his stint as former Director of the Hostage Working Group in Baghdad, S/CT Ops employee Erik Rye found himself in some unlikely situations. After having been rescued by U.S. forces, one hostage returned to his home, not to be welcomed with hugs, kisses, and relief, but skepticism and doubt about his story. Having not seen their husband and father for seven months, the hostage's wife and family didn't believe his sensational story of being an al-Qaida captive. The family soon took a trip to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to visit Rye. During the conversation with the Iraqi family, Rye reassured them that the hostage had indeed been rescued by the U.S. government. Rye knew his job would present challenges, but he never would have imagined himself assuming the role of marriage counselor!

Rye spent over 13 months in Baghdad managing hostage situations, and several other members of S/CT Ops staff have also done rotations there -- and elsewhere in the world. Over 450 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq since 2004, with over 60 nationalities represented. "We had a new case everyday in Iraq and at any given time I was working on at least a dozen cases. To resolve cases, we would do everything from coordinating with military and intelligence entities to just taking a report from an Iraqi civilian," Rye explained.

Because the United States does not make concessions to terrorist demands, these and other techniques are used to alleviate hostage situations. The most daunting cases are those in which there are not adequate leads. We do what we can to provide the families with information without compromising sensitive information that could allow us to solve the case. Nevertheless, we understand that it is difficult for family members, because they have limited visibility of the case (since most of the information we collect is classified).

The overall approach to hostage crisis management involves recovering the victims, bringing the criminals to justice, and using lessons learned to prevent future hostage situations: Recovery, Justice, Prevention. This method, coupled with the policy of no concessions to terrorist demands, has ultimately increased the security of American civilians overseas, making them less vulnerable to hostage crises. International cooperation with governments and local law enforcement has also proven beneficial. The recent Colombian hostage release is an example. There were hundreds around the world who touched this case. As explained by Rye, "It was a five-year-old case, and that is huge." Plan Colombia is a wonderful success story as it highlights the return of hostages, the justice brought to insurgents and numerous lessons learned to help U.S. government officials in future occurrences.
]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/counterterrorism_recovery/ 2008-07-31T16:34:00-05:00 U.S. Foreign Press Center Celebrates 40 Years About the Author: Jennifer Archibeque is a Program Officer at the State Department's Foreign Press Center.

The new Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James K. Glassman engaged a crowded room of foreign correspondents from around the world in a discussion about U.S. Public Diplomacy and the War of Ideas at the Washington Foreign Press Center on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. [Full Text | View Video]

He returns today to give the keynote address at the Washington Foreign Press Center's 40th anniversary celebration. The Foreign Press Center (FPC), part of the Bureau of Public Affairs at the State Department, was created in 1968 to assist the 160 foreign correspondents based in Washington so that they could "provide their newspapers, radio stations and television outlets with better coverage of American developments and with more frequent in depth coverage." It is one tool in America's Public Diplomacy arsenal.

On Tuesday, Mr. Glassman explained that the current mission of U.S. diplomacy "...is to use the tools of ideological engagement -- words, deeds, images -- to create an environment hostile to violent extremism."

Although the Under Secretary emphasized the importance of U.S. engagement in the war of ideas in the Middle East, he also said that this war must be international in scope and that its goal is not to persuade foreign populations to adopt more favorable views of the United States and its policies, but to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the U.S. and its allies do not manifest themselves in the form of violent extremism."

As Mr. Glassman spoke, I thought about how the FPC, created under the U.S. Information Agency 40 years ago and then folded into the State Department in 1999, fit into the mission that he articulated.

Had the work that my colleagues and I have done with journalists over the years helped to ensure that negative sentiments had not manifested themselves in the form of violent extremism?

Public diplomacy is difficult to gauge because there is no quantifiable measure for human relationships and mutual understanding. Yet, anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that the answer is yes.

Immediately following September 11th, we took groups of Muslim and Christian journalists from around the world on reporting tours to learn about religious pluralism and ethnic diversity in the United States. During one of these tours, we visited mosques in New Mexico, an evangelical mega church in Texas, and interfaith organizations in Chicago. Afterward, the journalists wrote about how Americans of all colors and creeds were free to practice their faith in the U.S.

The journalists were often surprised at how freely everyone worshipped and by how religious Americans privately were. They wrote about this and talked to others about their experiences.

Had the journalists, in sharing their first-hand experiences when they returned home, caused someone who was susceptible to believing extremist ideology to change their mind? And if so, wasn't information that challenged one's world view a crucial first step?

Journalists' testimony that their U.S. experience challenged their previous perceptions, lead me to believe that the answer is yes. Cross-cultural encounters that FPC officers set up during the course of their every day work helps create an environment hostile to violent extremism.

As we celebrate 40 years in operation with a membership that now exceeds 3,000 journalists, I will think of how important carrying our message the last three feet in face-to-face communication truly is.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/fpc_40_years/ 2008-07-18T20:14:00-05:00 U.S. Supports Refugees Worldwide About the Author: Todd Pierce works in the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.

Today is World Refugee Day. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - that’s an organization, not a person – runs this event every year on June 20 as a way to draw attention to the situation of the world’s refugees. There will be events marking the day all over the world, including one hosted by First Lady Laura Bush at the White House.

Sadly, after a few years in which refugee numbers fell, they are on the rise again. This year UNHCR estimates that refugee numbers jumped from 9.9 to 11.4 million people. (Source: UNHCR’s 2007 Global Trends report.) Generally, the International community defines refugees as persons who have crossed a recognized international border and have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. So 11.4 million refugees doesn’t include internally displaced people, who are forced out of their homes but still remain in their home country. That number has risen from 24.4 million to 26 million in the past year, says the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center.

The U.S. government has long been the most generous contributor to refugee relief. We give more money to help refugees than any other country, funding programs in central Africa, the Middle East, the Burma-Thai border, Nepal, and many other parts of the world. Last year the U.S. taxpayer funded, through the State Department, over a billion dollars worth of programs to help refugees and other vulnerable migrants. These programs cover some things you’d expect, such as shelter (the famous blue and white tents you’ve seen on the news) and food.

The United States also promotes better health in refugee camps, and strives to reduce the mortality from diseases like malaria, diarrhea and acute respiratory illness. In order to get the most bang for our buck, most of our assistance goes through UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and the International Organization for Migration. That way we avoid duplication of effort and get the money where it is most needed. The Bureau follows up these contributions fairly zealously, so that we know the money is being spent properly.

We also do a lot on the resettlement front, we work with UNHCR and our non-govenmental organization partners to identify refugees in need of resettlement. The United States resettles more refugees each year than all other 25 resettlement countries combined. Most of the refugees we resettle to the United States can’t go home or integrate locally. As a country where 20% of the world’s migrants reside, our experience has taught us that our country has benefited from immigration generally and the contributions refugees make and that admitting them is the right thing to do. This year President Bush has authorized up to 70,000 refugees to come to the United States; many will be fleeing violence in Burma, Iraq and other troubled spots.

The UNHCR chose “protection” as the theme of this year’s World Refugee Day event. That means protection from violence, of course, and protection from the elements (those tents again). It also means protection from persecution and other harm, which is unfortunately widespread. Humanitarian workers, who are on the front line of refugee relief, also need protection: no longer are they always considered neutral parties by warring factions. Last year’s disgraceful al Qaeda attack on the UNHCR offices in Algiers, and the kidnappings of humanitarian workers in Iraq, showed that even purely charitable enterprises are not immune from terrorist threat.

At the White House event, refugees from Iraq, from Burma and from the Democratic Republic of Congo will speak about their experiences in their home countries, and countries of first asylum and how the resettlement experience went here. Even with the generosity of the communities where they found themselves, and the resilience of most refugees, resettling in another country – and cutting your ties to your country – can be a tough experience. Their success here, however, is the best type of encouragement for those of us in the State Department who work on refugee issues.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/us_supports_refugees/ 2008-06-20T14:18:01-05:00 Combating Modern Day Slavery About the Author: Ambassador Mark P. Lagon is Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Director of the U.S. Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Ambassador Lagon's previous post: Human Trafficking: The Basics.

In every country around the world, including the United States, there is human trafficking. Men, women, and children are held in domestic servitude, exploited for commercial sex, forcibly recruited as child soldiers, or abused in factories and sweatshops. These forms of human trafficking are, in fact, modern-day slavery, and I have the privilege in my role as director of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to draw attention to their plight and work toward abolition.

This year, America commemorates the bicentennial of the outlawing of the transatlantic slave trade. The same lie which underpinned the transatlantic slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, namely that some people are less than human, is the very lie that fuels human trafficking.

Consider the treatment of Nirmala Bonat, an Indonesian maid who has relentlessly pursued justice in Malaysian courts for nearly four years since being brutally beaten and burned on her breast with an iron in 2004 by her Malaysian employer, for which the employer faces criminal charges. Despite having to stay in Kuala Lumpur – where she is sheltered by the Indonesian Embassy – to continue with court proceedings and being humiliated in court on many occasions, she has stood her ground, refusing to go home and give up her case. In doing so, she has become an inspiration worldwide for abused trafficking victims seeking to claim their rights. She is a hero in our 2008 Trafficking in Persons Report, which I joined Secretary Rice in releasing last week. This report raises awareness and stimulates action to address this crime. It is an invaluable tool in drawing the world’s attention to the existence of modern-day slavery.

Those who commit or facilitate the crime of trafficking in persons—including fraudulent recruiters, exploitative employers, and corrupt government officials—must be held to account.

This year’s report highlights the issue of demand, and the role it plays in perpetuating the phenomenon of trafficking. So-called “customers” of the “sex industry” must realize how the demand for commercial sex can directly or indirectly fuel sex trafficking. With respect to the forced labor side of trafficking, companies can play an important role by working to ensure that the products they provide for consumers are not derived wholly or in part from forced labor. Consumers need to be aware of the tainting of production chains with this modern-day slavery.

As we continue to shed light on emerging global trends for trafficking in persons, we are steadfast in support for countries willing to partner with us in this global fight. We remain committed to act as a voice for the many voiceless victims of this crime—the prostituted woman or child, the exploited domestic worker, the trapped agricultural laborer. Their bondage demands our attention and action. Let us together restore the human dignity of all those affected by this dehumanizing and horrific crime.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/modern_slavery/ 2008-06-12T14:01:01-05:00 Secretary Rice on Foreign Policy in the Last Eight Years Secretary Rice reccently wrote a comprehensive article on U.S. foreign policy in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

“My admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the 'relationships with the big powers' -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy.”]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/secretary_condoleezza_rice_on_foreign_policy_in_the_last_eight_years/ 2008-06-09T13:35:01-05:00 Human Trafficking: The Basics Ambassador Mark Lagon serves as Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

Every day, all over the world, people are coerced into bonded labor, exploited in domestic servitude, and enslaved in agricultural work and in factories. The majority of transnational victims are females trafficked into prostitution.

We estimate that approximately 800,000 people are trafficked internationally each year; millions more are enslaved in their own countries. Approximately eighty percent are women and girls, and up to half are minors.

In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which created the office I now head. This legislation legally defines ‘severe forms of human trafficking in persons' as involving ‘force, fraud, or coercion.'

‘Trafficking in persons' and even ‘human trafficking' are jargon terms—trafficking is not chiefly about moving people across borders. Trafficking involves extreme exploitation and control (such as through debt bondage). It is truly a modern-day form of slavery. It shouldn't be regulated; it must be abolished.

Part of our Congressional mandate is to produce the annual Trafficking in Persons Report every June. The report spells out what countries around the world are doing on the three "P” approach: prosecution, protection, and prevention, and what more can be done together between the United States and other countries on all three fronts.

Countries are ranked into "tiers” based on efforts to implement the three "P” approach for the elimination of human trafficking. Prosecution includes passing comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation and criminal, not just civil, prosecutions of traffickers. Protection includes identifying, protecting, and assisting victims, as well as encouraging government and NGO cooperation. Prevention includes raising public awareness and training law enforcement and first-responders.

Human trafficking is a gross human rights crime that steals peoples' freedom and dignity. The report is an invaluable tool in drawing the world's attention to the existence of modern-day slavery.

In the last five years, over 100 countries have passed new laws or amended existing law to toughen penalties for human trafficking. Thousands of criminals around the world are now prosecuted when, just five years ago, only a handful wound up in jail.

We also work diplomatically with foreign governments to encourage progress in combating trafficking and manage anti-trafficking funds. In FY 2007, the USG spent approximately $74 million to fund 154 anti-trafficking projects in about 70 countries.

In my role as Ambassador, I engage diplomatically with representatives of foreign governments here in Washington and abroad. In my 10 month tenure, I have traveled to East Asia, India, the Middle East, Russia, Central Europe, three regions of Africa, and Mexico twice.

I also regularly meet and collaborate regularly with representatives of the NGO community; I brief Members of Congress on issues related to trafficking; and I work with colleagues in the State Department to ensure that sex trafficking and slave labor are given proper consideration in our larger foreign policy calculations.

While there are successes and defeats in any worthy endeavor, I need only think of the exploited, abused and brutalized individuals I have met in my travels around the globe, whenever the work we are engaged in seems daunting. As survivors they are inspiring. And we are tangibly helping people reclaim their dignity.

On my first trip to Southeast Asia, I met Aye Aye Win, a young Burmese woman who dared to search for work beyond her own tortured country. A recruiter painted a beautiful picture of work in a neighboring country. Aye Aye assumed substantial debt to cover up-front costs required by the recruiter for this job placement.

Together with some 800 Burmese migrants, many children, Aye Aye was "placed” in a shrimp farming and processing factory. But it wasn't a job. It was a prison camp.

The isolated 10-acre factory was surrounded by steel walls, 15 feet tall with barbed wire fencing, located in the middle of a coconut plantation far from roads. Workers weren't allowed to leave and were forbidden phone contact with any one outside. They lived in run-down wooden huts, with hardly enough to eat.

Aye Aye is a brave, daring soul. She tried to escape with three other women. But factory guards caught them and dragged them back to the camp. They were punished as an example to others, tied to poles in the middle of the courtyard, and refused food or water. Aye Aye told me how her now beautiful hair was shaved off as another form of punishment, to stigmatize her. And how she was beaten for trying to flee.

Beaten. Tortured. Starved. Humiliated. Is this not slavery??

Naturally, the question arises, what can you do to fight modern day slavery?

Human trafficking happens right here in the United States. I chair an interagency group on fighting trafficking at home and abroad. When we ask others around the world to work with us, it is important that we speak on how we are addressing the problem. You too can keep watch for freedom. If you see signs of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation of a child or adult in the U.S. or abroad, notify the police or call the U.S. human trafficking hotlines: 1-888-3737-888 or 1-888-428-7581 or 1-800-THE LOST or 1-866-DHS-2ICE.

You can help safeguard freedom in travel by fighting child sex tourism where predators travel to use children in prostitution. Keep vigiliant against it. And ask local travel agencies, hotels, and tour operators to sign the Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children in Travel and Tourism at http://www.thecode.org.

Finally, speak out about freedom. Talk to one person about modern day slavery and introduce them to our Web site at http://www.state.gov/g/tip, and raise the level of public awareness to this global problem. ]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/human_trafficking_basics/ 2008-04-01T15:55:00-05:00 …On Race in America and Promoting Democracy Around the Globe Sean McCormack serves as the Department Spokesman and Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

I wanted to share with you an excerpt from Secretary Rice's interview yesterday with the Washington Times. I believe it is instructive to consider her responses to questions about race in America in the context of our administration's commitment to promote democracy around the globe. While I read some commentary questioning our commitment to democracy and human rights promotion, I also hear plenty of criticism on the other hand that we come across too often as wagging our fingers at countries struggling with democratic reform. So while we push, prod, cajole, criticize and praise others, we should also keep in mind our own struggles to build a more perfect union. (Full disclosure: you will find that Secretary Rice has made a similar point in public before). Since this exchange took place at the end of the editorial board, I also included the rest of the interview as it addresses the issue of education as an important national security priority.



Interview: Secretary Rice With The Washington Times Editorial Board, March 27, 2008 --

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with any other country. (Laughter.) We're pulling up on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. And regardless of what race we were or what class we belonged to, it was a devastating time for America, without a doubt. And there's so much talk about race in the race for the White House. What, if any, lessons do you think Americans, as a whole, have learned since then?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you know, it's -- America doesn't have an easy time dealing with race. I sit in my office and the portrait immediately over my shoulder is Thomas Jefferson, because he was my first predecessor. He was the first Secretary of State. And sometimes I think to myself, what would he think -- (laughter) -- a black woman Secretary of State as his predecessor 65 times removed -- successor, 65 times removed? What would he think that the last two successors have been black Americans? And so, obviously, when this country was founded, the words that were enshrined in all of our great documents and that have been such an inspiration to people around the world, for the likes of Vaclav Havel, associate themselves with those documents. They didn't have meaning for an overwhelming element of our founding population. And black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together; Europeans by choice, and Africans in chains.

And that's not a very pretty reality of our founding, and I think that particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today. But that relevance comes in two strains. On the one hand, there's the relevance that descendents of slaves, therefore, did not get much of a head start. And I think you continue to see some of the effects of that. On the other hand, the tremendous efforts of many, many, many people, some of whom, whose names we will never know and some individuals’ names who we do know, to be impatient with this country for not fulfilling its own principles, has led us down a path that has put African Americans in positions and places that, I think, nobody would have even thought at the time that Dr. King was assassinated. And so we deal daily with this contradiction, this paradox about America, that on the one hand, the birth defect continues to have effects on our country, and indeed, on the discourse and effects on perhaps the deepest thoughts that people hold; and on the other hand, the enormous progress that has been made by the efforts of blacks and whites together, to finally fulfill those principles.

QUESTION: Like running for President, for example?

SECRETARY RICE: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Like running for President?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, yeah. I think the President, or being Secretary of State or having been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or being the CEOs of some of the most major companies or being the best golfer in the whole world.

QUESTION: I mention it because, obviously, the race has become a major issue this race.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, but I'm not -- look, I'm not going to talk about the campaign, because I don't do politics.

QUESTION: It was a serious attempt.

SECRETARY RICE: It was a very good attempt. (Laughter.) I don't – I am not going to do politics --

QUESTION: Darn, that messed up my attempt. (Laughter.) And I wasn’t even going to ask about the presidency, but the vice presidency. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Barack (inaudible) speech about race -- did you listen to it?

SECRETARY RICE: I did and, you know, I think it was important that he gave it for a whole host of reasons. But look, I'm not going to talk about the politics. What I'm talking about is how -- you asked me about Dr. King and race in America. And I'm telling you that there is a paradox for this country and a contradiction of this country and we still haven't resolved it. But what I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them, and that's our legacy.



My grandmother and my great-grandmother, and my father, who endured terrible humiliations growing up -- and my father in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and my mother's family in Birmingham, Alabama-- still loved this country. And I've often spoken of the Civil Rights Movement as the second founding of America, because finally we started to overcome this birth defect. But if anybody believes that black Americans love this country any less than white Americans do, they ought to go and talk to people who live under very tough circumstances, sometimes doing menial labor and doing tough jobs, and really all they want is the American dream. All they're focused on is is their kid going to be well educated enough to go to college and have a better life than they had. And one of the things that attracted me to George W. Bush, one of the primary things, it was not actually foreign policy, it was No Child Left Behind. Because when he talked about the soft bigotry of low expectations, I know what that feels like.

And so to my mind, where our understanding of and conversation of race has got to go. And I mean now, race. Black Americans aren't immigrants. We may call ourselves African Americans, but we're not immigrants. We don't mimic the immigrant story. Where this conversation has got to go is that black Americans and white Americans founded this country together and I think we've always wanted the same thing. And it's been now a very hard and long struggle to begin to get to the place that we can all pursue the same thing.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I know you have to go. I just want to ask one last question. What does the future hold for you? You say you don't do politics now, but if you could change the things you've just talked about -- race in American, economics, opportunity -- would you do politics?

QUESTION: And would you consider vice president? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Not interested. I’ve been at this, as you’ve kindly said, a long time. It's time for new blood. But look, I will go back to -- first of all, back East -- back West of the Mississippi -- which is where I’m from. There's a reason I'm an educator. There's a reason that the first thing that I would describe myself as is an educator. Because I believe that really is the basis on which we finally bring these two streams together: those of us who were fortunate enough to have parents and grandparents who set us on that path so that I became Secretary of State and my cousin became executive vice president of a major drug manufacturer, and people who are still struggling. And the difference is my parents and my grandparents were able to educate us.

I have worked hard on matters of providing educational opportunity for underprivileged kids. I started a program in East Palo Alto, California, that's -- in 1992. It an after-school and summer academy, called the Center for a New Generation. And the whole idea is that they should have limitless horizons and they shouldn't let anybody tell them what they're going to be, and somebody has an obligation to provide them that set of opportunities. But I'll tell you, the more I've been in the national security realm and in the foreign policy realm, I also recognize that it is absolutely essential for the health of our country as a whole because -- and for our role in the world. Because if our people are not educated and don't have opportunity and can't compete in a globalizing world where we're not going to be able to protect, I think that we will turn inward and we'll turn protectionist and we'll turn fearful. But if it really is the case that Americans can compete and can be educated and can be retrained, if necessary, when that job goes away to do the next job, then we're going to continue to be the leader on free trade and we're going to continue to be an open economy and we're going to continue to welcome people here from other countries, and we're not going to be fearful and we're not going to turn xenophobic. And so I consider the state of education to also be a key national security problem for us, maybe the most important national security problem.

I'll end with a little story, because it goes back to why, you know, why my family was educated and just says something about race --

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you think that -- you mentioned No Child Left Behind, do you think that turned out the way it was supposed to?

SECRETARY RICE: I think it’s had enormous impact, I really do. And I hope -- you know, I hope it can continue. But look, you can't tell if a child is succeeding unless you measure, and then somebody has to be held accountable if children aren't learning. If you don't hold somebody accountable that children aren't learning, you must believe that they can't learn. And so, I think, the program has had real impact.

But I want to just close with this little story because -- maybe some of you’ve heard it. But -- my grandfather, my father's father, was a sharecropper's son in Ewtah, Alabama -- E-w-t-a-h, Alabama. And for some reason, he decided he wanted to get book learning. And so he would ask people who came through where could a colored man go to college. And they said, well, there's Stillman College, which is a little Presbyterian school about 60 miles from here, but you're going to have to pay to go there. So he saved up his cotton and he got enough money from his cotton to go to Stillman. He made his way to Stillman. He made it through his first year of school. And then the second year they said, okay, now where's your tuition for the second year? And he said, well, I’ve paid with all the cotton I had. And they said -- he said, but -- well, how are those boys going to school? They said, well, you know, they have what's called a scholarship. He said -- and if you wanted to be a Presbyterian minister, then you could have a scholarship too. And my grandfather said, oh, you know, that's exactly what I plan to do. (Laughter.)

And so I always say, my family has been Presbyterian and college

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you so much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much.

]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/race_in_america_promoting_democracy_around_the_globe/ 2008-03-28T16:57:00-05:00 Your Passport File We received many questions from the press and the public, several on this blog, about the information contained in a person’s passport file. This entry details exactly what information can be found in a passport file.

You may also view a Policy Podcast video featuring Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy that discusses "Passport Data Security."
View Video | Full Text

Generally, after the State Department issues a passport, all personal documents are returned to the applicant – the only document kept in the Department’s passport file is the passport application. Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports. Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as completed by the applicant.

Download the actual passport application forms at:
PDF Application for U.S. Passport or Registrations
PDF Application for U.S. Passport by Mail
The application form asks for the biographic information needed to determine if the applicant qualifies for a U.S. Passport, including:

· Applicant’s name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, social security number, marital status and mailing address and previous passport number if applicable.
· Applicant’s physical descriptors like height, hair color and eye color.
· Names and place of birth of the applicant’s parents.

The application form also asks for optional information that helps us to deliver applications on time, and to contact a citizen in case of an emergency:

· Occupation and employer of the applicant and contact information for the applicant as well as his or her emergency contact. (these have proved invaluable in contacting next of kin when a US citizen dies or needs assistance abroad).
· Travel plans as completed by an applicant on the form would be in the record. (This is valuable in getting the passport to the applicant on time.

In complex circumstances, for instance if there are grounds to suspect possible fraud or if a person born overseas claims citizenship by virtue of having an American citizen parent, we may need additional evidence to review the applications, and we keep this information in the passport file with the applications.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/your_passport_file/ 2008-03-21T21:19:00-05:00 In Response to “Question of the Week” Regarding Engaging Hamas Should the U.S. Engage Hamas in the Peace Process Between the Israelis and Palestinians?

Apparently, our question of the week has caught the eye of some in the mainstream media. Take a look at today’s daily briefing transcript, in which one of our regular mainstream media briefing participants zeroed in on the question to ask whether the government was indicating a change in policy with respect to Hamas. I replied, as I had earlier in the briefing to a separate question not related to the blog, that neither had we changed policy nor were we considering a policy change. Our policy has been that we do not deal with terrorists organization (of which Hamas is classified as one). We have encouraged all in the Palestinian areas to make the choice of renouncing terror, turning away from violence, and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. That’s our policy.

Now we have asked what some might think are provocative questions before in our question of the week section—or at least what some might consider provocative coming from the government (see the list at the bottom of the post). We try to make these questions both topical and to ask them in such a way as to generate informed comment, which I see as an important component of making Dipnote part of the foreign policy blog community and to building a community around Dipnote. Today was, however, the first time I had been asked in the briefing about the question of the week, so I thought it was worth noting in a post.

I thought it worth noting for another reason. Whether intended or not, the questioning at the briefing (and afterwards at the background session) left me with the impression that some in briefing room do not understand the idea behind Dipnote, which I outlined in the first post. Not surprising, but at the same time a bit disappointing. Maybe they were checking us out for the first time. Maybe somebody didn’t like our question. Maybe they think you need their help in interpreting what you read. Whatever the case, we’ll continue trying to push envelope in our own particular way to try to make the blog a better place for discussion about real foreign policy issues, decisions about which have real world implications for people’s lives.

Previous Question of the Week Entries:

· Do the Palestinians and Israelis Really Want Peace?

· Does New Information Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Program Warrant a Change in U.S. Policy?

· Does the Popularity of the United States Matter and Should It Affect Policy Decisions?

· Does the UN Effectively Fulfill its Mission?

· Fidel Castro Resigns… How Can the U.S. Assist Cuba’s Transition to Democracy?

· How To Convince Nations With Influence Over Burmese Junta To Halt Violence?

· Is the Creation of a Palestinian State Feasible? Should U.S. Play a Role?

· Is the U.S. Doing Enough to Protect Consumers From Potentially Harmful Imported Products?

· Should Promoting Abstinence and Being Faithful be Part of U.S. AIDS Prevention Programs?

· Should U.S. Congress Consider Resolution Labeling Ottoman Empire’s Massacre of Armenians Genocide?

· What Actions Should U.S. Take if President Musharraf Fails To Keep Promises?

· What Effect Will Hamas Have on Negotiations Over the Future of Israel and Palestine?

· What Tangible Results Are Necessary for the Annapolis Conference To Be Deemed a Success?

· What Will Life in Cuba be Like After Castro?

· When, if Ever, is the Declaration of a State of Emergency Justified?

· Who Should be Allowed To Possess Nuclear Technology?

· Will Tougher Sanctions Convince Iran To Abandon Their Nuclear Ambitions?

]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/in_response_to_question_of_the_week/ 2008-03-10T22:55:00-05:00 World Officials Meet To Mitigate Climate Change Kathy Eagen serves in the State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

The energy was high as the first wave of registrants entered the Washington Convention Center to get credentialed for the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008. Everywhere you turn a different language is being spoken, connections are being made, ideas debated, and greetings fly as old friends meet once again on the fringes of this ministerial-level meeting.

This is the third in a series of meetings regarding the rapid deployment of renewable energy to mitigate climate change. Months of planning have finally come down to this event, three days of ministerial-level meetings, a concurrent trade show and side events. It's been a long road, but we are finally here! It's satisfying to see how the weeks of meeting, planning, and general craziness have culminated into an event with more than 5500 participants.

The State Department, USDA, EPA, Department of Interior, CEQ, Department of Energy, USAID, NASA, and others have all participated in the planning and execution of this event. If you ever have planned a large event with over 2500 expected guests, then you can imagine the chaos that reigns at the last minute! As usual, things go awry...where are the pens? Does anyone have a stapler? Our copier is broken! We lost the next Ministerial speaker!

But, what we are hoping to accomplish over the next three days should hopefully have a far reaching effect, and linger beyond whatever small crises arise. The need for renewable energy is real, and pressing, and participation in the meeting by over 100 countries shows that this is an issue shared over the world.

Whether you are a developing country looking for alternatives to expensive imported energy sources, or a developed country looking to reduce its carbon footprint, all share a common vision and commitment to look towards renewables as an alternative source of energy.

The State Department is looking towards the potential greening of our embassies overseas, from installing solar panels to low-flow water faucets. But this is hopefully just the beginning, and with the research and development that is currently underway, it gives hope that everyone around the world will continue to increase our use of renewables.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/wirec_2008/ 2008-03-05T12:24:00-05:00 Behind the Scenes With Foreign Journalists in Texas Babs Chase serves as a Program Officer for the State Department's Foreign Press Center.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

The State Department’s Foreign Press Center (FPC) is mandated to help foreign journalists better understand the U.S. government and American culture and society so their coverage of events in the United States is more accurate and thorough. To accomplish this, we arrange "reporting tours" that bring foreign media to the United States to write on a specific topic, and during the tour put them into contact with government and private sector decision opinion leaders who are knowledgeable in that area. Our latest tour is bringing 25 media from around the globe to visit the U.S. on a reporting tour themed "How Americans Vote: The Processes and Issues Surrounding the 2008 Presidential Elections."

Participants are nominated for these tours by their Embassies on a variety of criteria that are set for each trip. The Foreign Press Center team reviews the applicants paying close attention to the credentials of the journalist, the reach of the publication and the influence in the country. For this trip, we requested mid-career political print and radio reporters and columnists who must be fluent in English and have a working knowledge of the U.S. political system. There are some tours that include journalists who require translators, but a trip of this size is unique and does not allow for that option.

The State Department covers all costs associated with the trip, including airfare, lodging, and meals. The FPC received over 50 strong nominees for this trip, and we finalized on the top 23 for final participation. This is quite an investment by the State Department, but the long-term influence and reach of providing this access to the journalists can make a difference that does not have a price.

We are embarking on an adventure to the Lone Star State with this group of 23 journalists representing 22 countries from all over the world. Our journey begins with the Texas primaries in Austin where we will do our best to share with these journalists the democracy that makes this country so great. Never in a million years would we think that the primary would continue to be as exciting as it is this long into the process.

After "Super Tuesday #2," we will travel to Houston and Laredo to learn more about the issues that will face those striving to be the next commander in chief. In Houston, we will visit with the Mayor and other community and industry leaders to learn more about that city’s views on the economy and healthcare. We will proceed from there to Laredo to get a first-hand look at immigration from those who reside in a border town living this issue and both sides of the debate on a daily basis.

I am honored to have the chance to follow both sides of this exciting election so closely, but, more importantly, to view it not just through my own eyes, but through the eyes of the inquisitive foreign journalists traveling with us.


Sunday, March 2, 2008

A jet-lagged but excited group arrived for our first meeting today anxious to get started and learn more about the week ahead. After the general housekeeping items, we gave them a chance to tell us why they were interested in this trip and what they hope to learn from their time here. The range of individuals and their experiences are vastly different and will make for an interesting group.

Many of our journalists have traveled through this country on business or for education numerous times, but there are also several for whom this is the first trip to the United States. For them, we not only have the privilege of welcoming them to Texas but also the honor of showing them what makes America great.

The journalists expressed the most interest in understanding the political process and following the key issues facing the candidates. Immigration and U.S. policy to their homelands were common themes as well as getting to know U.S. residents from their respective countries. One of the most telling remarks was when a journalist inquired about what she could write ----she is so accustomed to censorship that she could not understand the freedom we give her to tell the true story she sees from her briefings and experiences. It surprised her that we will not only expose them to all angles of an issue but also let them make their own conclusions.

The reporter from Poland was most intrigued with talking to the citizens to learn what makes them decide who to support—is it the charisma and personality of the candidate or the stance on the issues? What makes them get out and support not just with a vote but with their time and financial resources?

Several, especially those from Eastern Europe, have been happy with the relationship their countries have had with the Bush Administration and are hopeful that the new Administration will carry on these positive efforts. Also, the war in Iraq and terrorism were mentioned as issues of concern, but the other issues were more prevalent in the group discussions.

The reporter from Singapore was fabulous as she expressed her interest in the elections, she honestly admitted that she is most excited about an opportunity to attend the Houston Rodeo and see this true slice of Americana.

Many were excited about the elections from the Democratic side because they offer a chance for firsts—whether it will be the first woman or the first African-American—they see a chance for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world to change so much more than a government.

The group went to Stubbs Restaurant for a down home Southern Gospel brunch and stuffed themselves with biscuits and gravy and beef brisket while experiencing some amazing Texas music. Karen Hughes, former Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy for the Department of State, joined the group for lunch. Afterwards she took the time to speak and answer many of their questions regarding her time with the Administration. She is an amazing woman, taking the time with each to help them understand everything-from her stance on the 2008 elections to the progress of the Iraq war and her unwavering support of President Bush.

The political process in America is so transparent that we often take for granted that everyone understands how to get involved in high school or college with the political party or candidate of their choice. We have no fear of further social or career detriment if we put a bumper sticker on our car, spend a Saturday passing out campaign literature or attend a candidate rally.

The interest in this election around the world is like nothing I’ve seen in my short 15 years in the political world. We forget that standing in line for an hour to vote in a primary is not a burden, but rather a privilege that so many would give everything to do just once

I visited for awhile with our Egyptian journalist while walking through the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library discussing his desire to learn more about the basic grassroots organization so crucial to our democracy but so foreign to theirs. Hopefully our time on Tuesday with the Annette Strauss Institute for Civil Participation will give him some ideas to share with his audience about how everyone-especially the youth of a nation- can get involved, make a difference and become the next generation of leadership by realizing the power of their voice and their vote.

We will begin our day tomorrow with the Texas Secretary of State then spend the afternoon with the key professors of public and political affairs at the University of Texas. Until then!]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/foreign_journalists_texas/ 2008-03-03T10:10:00-05:00 24 or the Real World?  The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
Last week, at the Democratic primary debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, the very first question posed by moderator Charles Gibson was about the threat of nuclear terrorism. Confronted with a hypothetical scenario of a nuclear-equipped al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton said, "I think it's important... because obviously that's the most direct threat to the United States." She then went on to describe five steps she would take in that scenario.

Days later, Pope Benedict gave his annual "state of the world" address in Vatican City. He called on world leaders to strengthen their joint efforts to "prevent terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction."

For his part, President Bush says that, "The greatest threat we face today is the possibility of a secret and sudden attack with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons."

Across the board, the State Department, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, the White House, and many others are working to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using nuclear weapons and materials, and to plan how to respond to a nuclear terrorist attack if one were to occur.

For some people, though, the threat of nuclear terrorism belongs more in the plot line of a Jack Bauer escapade on the television drama 24 than on the priority lists of presidents and popes. Still, many people are aware of and concerned about the threat.

A recent public opinion survey by the Saga foundation found that 62% of Americans are concerned about the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while 38% are not concerned. The same survey found that 49% of Americans think Al-Qaeda poses a greater nuclear threat to the United States than another country armed with nuclear weapons.

I wonder where DipNote readers fall on this question:

Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism? Why or why not?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts!

(Note: I had a lot of fun blogging about my experiences in Saudi Arabia last year. As I continue to reflect on my time in Riyadh, I'm sure I'll have more posts about Saudi in the future. But I'm also going to start sharing some of my experiences with my current position with the Office of WMD Terrorism here in Washington. I'm looking forward to continue engaging on both topics – keep those comments coming!)]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/24_or_the_real_world/ 2008-01-16T13:39:00-05:00 AFSA Survey Falls Short Sean McCormack is the Spokesman for the U.S. Department of State

Tom Shannon and Richard Boucher both posted on stories yesterday referencing a "survey" conducted by the American Foreign Service Association about issues related to the Foreign Service. If you take a look at my briefing Tuesday, you'll see what I thought about the survey, so my post is not about re-hashing those thoughts, but I wanted to fill you in on how Richard, Tom, and others (perhaps) came to post entries on DipNote.

In the Department morning staff meeting Tuesday, I talked about a story appearing in the Washington Post that morning about AFSA's "survey", and I asked for budget information concerning congressional outlays for the Department during the previous three years as a way to talk about what Secretary Rice has done on the Hill on behalf of the Department (and the Foreign Service) during her tenure. My bringing up the story prompted comment from a number of senior staff around the table about how the impression left by the story couldn't have been further from the reality of what they had witnessed of the Secretary's efforts fighting for the building. Many volunteered that they wanted to speak to journalists writing stories on the topic. I saw this willingness to engage the public on this topic as an opening to encourage my colleagues at the Assistant Secretary level and above to make posts to DipNote. The content and actual writing of the posts would be up to them. I thought this brief explanation was worth a short post, as it has not been the norm that we have had multiple posts on the same topic from senior management folks at the Department.

One additional note about the "survey". In talking to one media organization, I found that AFSA denied the journalist's request for a copy of the questionnaire, which the media organization's polling experts said was critical in determining whether to ascribe any weight to the results. The experts also noted, as I did, that the lack of random sampling technique raised serious questions about the value of the "survey" results in drawing conclusions about attitudes in the Foreign Service. I read one news report in which AFSA officials said the "survey" aimed to get a general sense of members' views. Seems questions about methodology undercut any utility of this "survey" in getting even a general sense of members' views, and the refusal to release the actual questions asked raises even more issues leading to the core question of what one might usefully conclude from the AFSA survey.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/afsa_survey_falls_short/ 2008-01-10T12:56:00-05:00 AFSA Survey Results: Comments on the U.S. Foreign Service and Secretary Rice’s Leadership Thomas Shannon is the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Also see comments by State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack and U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher

I read with dismay the article in the Washington Post reporting on an AFSA survey which purported to show disappointment within the Foreign Service with Secretary Rice's leadership.

As any professional pollster will tell you, this kind of survey is imprecise and misleading. The survey does not include a representative sampling of the Foreign Service and it collates only the opinions of those who respond. It is a snapshot of a self-selecting group, and should not be understood to reflect the views of the nearly 12,000 members of the Foreign Service.

More to the point, it does not reflect my views. I have had the honor of working for Condoleezza Rice at the National Security Council and at State Department. She stands in the great tradition of George Marshall, George Shultz and Colin Powell as a Secretary committed to the State Department as an institution, the Foreign Service as an organization, and Foreign Service Officers as individuals.

Her confidence in the Foreign Service is expressed by her appointments: five out of the six regional assistant secretaries are Foreign Service Officers, myself included. It is expressed by her daily interactions: she has frequent contact with all levels of my Bureau; desk officers brief her before her trips, she meets with these same officers when she returns, she opens meetings to office directors and DASes, and she listens to and acts on the advice and guidance she receives. It is expressed by her outreach to our Embassies: she calls Ambassadors, reads and comments on cables, meets with Embassy staff and family members during her visits, and has used trips to hold sub-regional Chiefs of Mission conferences.

Finally, she has made the State Department the center of our foreign policy process. For those who care about the Foreign Service, nothing could be more important. None of us joined the Foreign Service because of salary, benefits, or locality pay. We joined because we want to serve our country and make a difference in the world. Under Secretary Rice's leadership, we are again at the helm. In the Western Hemisphere, the results are palpable and positive. I am proud to serve under such a fine person and a great Secretary of State.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/afsa_survey_results/ 2008-01-09T13:32:00-05:00 American Foreign Service Association Poll Results: An Inside Perspective Richard Boucher is the U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs. Also see comments by State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack and U.S. Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon.

Reading the Washington Post this morning, we all encountered the results of a poll done by the American Foreign Service Association (results at http://afsa.org/Jan08survey.pdf). It says that our diplomats are dissatisfied, particularly with their pay and assignments process, and don't think that our senior management has done enough to fix these problems.

Looking at this from the inside, many of us might disagree but obviously not everyone does. Surveys like this invite comment from people who are dissatisfied and, of course, they blame long standing problems on current management. When I joined the Foreign Service, 30 years ago, there was a financial benefit to being overseas. About fifteen years ago, the equation shifted. Locality pay and changes in benefits mean that it's now a financial hardship to go abroad, not to mention the isolation, disease and danger of being far from home. Current management, including Secretary Rice herself, have fought hard in the budget process to provide us the people, the program funding and the benefits we need to do our jobs well and take care of our families but the terms of service are still worse for most than when we started. This didn't just happen.

Finally, again from the inside, I'd say that like many organizations we thrive on complaining. Some of my best tours have included sitting around in Africa or Shanghai complaining about low pay compared to bankers and under funded operations. But, in the end, we all know we're doing important work for our country –that comes out in the survey too. Fifty-nine percent said they'd go to Iraq out of a sense of duty and of patriotism. That's been true for my entire career: we go to hard places and do tough jobs because it is meaningful to us personally and to our country. That's why we have such low attrition rates (4%) and an up-or-out promotion system, despite the complaining that's part of our culture.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/comments_afsa_poll_results/ 2008-01-09T01:04:00-05:00 President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: Success Rooted in International Partnerships Ambassador Mark Dybul serves as PEPFAR Coordinator, leading the implementation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Emergency Plan/PEPFAR). For more information about PEPFAR, please visit the PEPFAR website.

The success of the Emergency Plan is firmly rooted in partnerships, in the American people working hand in hand with the people of the world -- through governments, non-governmental organizations including faith- and community-based organizations, and the private sector -- to build systems and to empower individuals, communities and nations to tackle HIV/AIDS. And in just four years, it is working.

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, on November 30, to commemorate World AIDS Day, President Bush announced the latest results that PEPFAR has achieved in partnership with our host nations. Through September 30 of this year, PEPFAR has supported antiretroviral treatment for 1.45 million people. To put this number in perspective, when the Emergency Plan was announced, only 50,000 people living with HIV in all of Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment.

We've also made exciting progress in the areas of prevention and care. Through September 30 of this year, PEPFAR has also supported prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission services for women during more than 10 million pregnancies, including antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV-positive women during 800,000 of those pregnancies preventing an estimated 152,000 infant infections. We have also supported care for nearly 6.7 million people infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And we’ve supported over 30 million counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children. Additional newly-released PEPFAR program results are available on our Latest Results fact sheet.

The American people can be proud of the impact their generosity is having beyond our borders – it’s really one of the great untold stories of our time.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/aids_emergency_plan/ 2007-12-13T15:43:00-05:00 World AIDS Day: Leading the Fight Ambassador Mark Dybul serves as PEPFAR Coordinator, leading the implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Emergency Plan/PEPFAR). For more information about PEPFAR and World AIDS Day, please visit the PEPFAR website.

World AIDS Day, observed on December 1 each year, is an opportunity to remember the more than 20 million people who have died from AIDS and support the approximately 33 million people who are currently living with HIV. It is also a time, as President Bush put it, to "rededicate ourselves to a great purpose: We will turn the tide against HIV/AIDS -- once and for all." The U.S. Government theme for World AIDS Day this year is "The Power of Partnerships" to highlight the successes and future promise of partnerships in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Working together, the American people and the people of the world will achieve much more in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The international theme for World AIDS Day this year is "Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise," and the United States is doing just that.

On Friday, November 30, I joined President Bush and Mrs. Bush at a small church in Mount Airy, Maryland, where we met with representatives of faith-based groups that are working to care for people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS and prevent others from getting the virus. To commemorate World AIDS Day, President Bush announced the latest results achieved by his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. Around the world, PEPFAR has supported antiretroviral treatment for approximately 1.45 million people. We've also made exciting progress in the areas of prevention and care, demonstrating the power of partnerships with the people of the world – including governments, non-governmental organizations including faith- and community-based organizations, and the private sector. These partnerships are building capacity that will allow communities to sustain their efforts long after the Emergency Plan.
The American people can be proud of their leadership in the fight against this disease.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/world_aids_day/ 2007-12-04T14:12:01-05:00 U.S. Landmine Policy and the Ottawa Convention Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines: Similar Path This is an Op-Ed by Richard G. Kidd IV, who serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, Acting.

It is a curious and unfortunate paradox that the United States, the world’s largest single financial contributor to mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance, and the only major military power that has pledged to leave no mine behind on any battlefield, is considered by some to have rejected the humanitarian goal of protecting civilians from the effects of landmines during and after armed conflict. Why is this so? Simply because we will not join the Ottawa Convention, a landmine treaty whose absolutist formulation we cannot accept.

This paradox results in a situation in which the United States operates at the center of the humanitarian mine action community, yet it stands outside of the Ottawa process. Given this unique position, the United States has the advantage of well-earned credibility to provide commentary on the past and future of mine action, and to do so unconstrained by any demands to adhere to the political orthodoxy of the Ottawa Convention.

The Ottawa Convention’s clear and simple message, to ban anti-personnel landmines, caused the convention to be quickly adopted, and has undeniably led to reductions in the humanitarian hazards generated by indiscriminately used anti-personnel landmines. Yet it is this very simplicity that is also the greatest weakness of the Ottawa Convention; it ignores other hazardous mines -- such as anti-vehicle mines -- and at-risk munitions, calls for the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of scarce resources where they are sometimes not needed most, and perpetuates an artificial and sometimes acrimonious divide between states that share the goal of reducing the humanitarian effects of such munitions on civilians.

While there have been marked successes over the past ten years in terms of reducing the humanitarian impacts of landmines, not all of these successes can be ascribed solely to the Ottawa Convention. Indeed, further political or humanitarian returns generated by a strict, literal adherence to certain aspects of the Convention will come only at an exponentially increasing cost. In effect, the Convention has hit its “high water mark.” A strict “mine free” interpretation of its requirements would require every anti-personnel mine to be removed, no matter how remote or costly, will in the end serve to divert limited financial resources from other humanitarian crises where they could do more good and save more lives.

The United States is moving deliberately and with due humanitarian consideration toward an approach to post-conflict clearance and destruction programs that address all explosive remnants of war and not just landmines. This approach is reflected in new authorities provided to the Department of State by our Congress and with expanded financial resources. While it might be easy and simple to direct clearance efforts toward one specific type of weapon or munition as suggested in the Ottawa Convention and other ad hoc processes, such as landmines or cluster munitions or AK-47s, in the end, such an approach falls short as it is driven more by political optics than by the on-the-ground requirements. The United States believes that a better approach is to seek measures that meet the totality of the needs experienced by countries suffering from the legacy of war. The United States urges others -- donors, activists, academics, and impacted nations -- to take a more holistic approach by directing clearance, and destruction efforts, and resources towards communities that suffer from surplus, abandoned, or residual conventional weapons and munitions of all types, and to do so upon the basis of objective requirements rather than political pronouncements.

Celebrating Common Accomplishments:

The negotiation of the Ottawa Convention came at a time in history that was most opportune for its supporters. Earlier wars of decolonization as well as proxy struggles during the Cold War changed the way mines were used, making them more often than not weapons of terror directed against civilians by insurgents rather than legitimate weapons used between armies on the field of battle. More recently, the end of the Cold War, the success of former colonies struggling for independence, and a series of relatively effective peacekeeping interventions helped to stop the most egregious cases of mine laying.

The world was still shocked by the atrocities of Cambodia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan but not yet sure if the actions of the UN and NATO peacekeepers would carry the day when the Ottawa Convention opened for signatures in 1997. Taking advantage of this unique geo-political moment, the Ottawa Convention built upon or expanded many practices that already were being tried and tested in various forms by military, technical, and humanitarian experts. Subsequently there has been an impressive list of positive outcomes, some attributable to the Ottawa process, others a natural result of ongoing trends in warfare and post-conflict response. In many cases, the United States, while not a party to the Convention, has contributed directly and substantially to these positive outcomes because of our interest in reducing the humanitarian threat posed by such munitions, and because it was the right thing to do, not because of any particular provision of the Ottawa Convention.

The trade in landmines of all types has decreased dramatically in the past ten years. The laying of new mines is down, the number of mines coming out of the ground has increased, and tens of millions of mines held in stockpiles have been destroyed, accomplishments that are all in line with U.S. policy and practice. Since 1992, the United States has banned the sale and transfer of its anti-personnel landmines. Similarly, those major military powers, which are not members of the Ottawa Convention, have abided by their obligations under the Amended Mines Protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which, along with the changing nature of warfare, has limited the laying of mines principally to dictatorial regimes, extremist insurgents, and narco-traffickers. In addition, the United States has concerted efforts underway to help countries destroy their surplus conventional weapons stockpiles, including landmine stockpiles, particularly in cases where such stockpiles might be subject to diversion for illicit purposes, or pose a safety threat to adjoining communities due to spontaneous detonation. These efforts seek to destroy all stockpile contents, not just selected types of munitions such as anti-personnel landmines.

Another aspect of the Ottawa Convention that is often positively cited is its call for those nations in a position to do so to provide assistance to survivors of landmine accidents. The USAID Leahy War Victims Fund has been helping landmine survivors and their families since its creation in 1989 when it started working in Afghanistan. Today it has supported programs in more than 40 countries and has spent over $143 million to expand access to affordable, appropriate prosthetics and orthotic services, and to advance the economic, social, and political integration of civilian war victims and people living with disabilities. These services are provided to all war victims, regardless of the type of munition causing the injury.

The Ottawa Convention has provided an opportunity for expanded citizen involvement, but this movement is not based just around the Convention. The United States government works actively and closely with more than sixty non-governmental organizations and citizens groups in its public-private partnership program, helping to expand awareness of this issue. Today, private U.S. citizens are contributing millions of dollars to mine action annually.

Most estimates indicate that somewhere between $3.0 and $4.0 billion dollars have been provided to humanitarian mine action efforts across the globe. It is important to acknowledge that the United States alone has provided over $1.2 billion of this amount, or roughly 1/3 of the world’s total since 1993. Right now the United States provides over 100% more funding to mine action than the next largest single contributor. Clearly, there would be much less to celebrate today with respect to the accomplishments of mine action were it not for the sustained and substantial support of the United States. Given that mine victims are down to around 5,000 per year from 26,000 per year four years ago (something that all should celebrate), and assuming that victim rates are proportional to funds provided to mine clearance, the U.S. share of this decrease, 7,000, is greater than the current number of casualties. In other words, there would be at least twice as many mine victims today then there are currently, were it not for the efforts of the U.S.

This financial investment has increased national capacity and dramatically improved mine action efficiency, effectiveness, and safety in mine affected countries. Impact surveys, management training, enhanced information systems, and better demining techniques have come together to ensure that mine clearance is safer and more productive than it was ten years ago, while better targeted to achieve higher “returns” in terms of released land and reduced casualties. Almost all mine affected countries, at least those that want U.S. funding, now produce strategic plans that prioritize clearance efforts based upon humanitarian “impacts,” thus ensuring that the most valuable land and most dangerous minefields are cleared first.

Proximate Goals – The U.S. Policy Position

The essence of United States landmine policy is that we retain the right to employ landmines to defend our men and women in uniform, and starting in 2010, we will have systems in place to ensure that the U.S. goal of no mine ever being left behind anywhere in the world where it might pose a threat to civilians is achieved. No other significant military power has made such a sweeping commitment for all types of landmines. Similarly, in 2005 the United States banned the use of non-detectable mines – regardless of whether they were anti-vehicle or anti-personnel. The United States recognized the post-conflict humanitarian impact these mines could have and acted accordingly. We urge other states to follow suit.

The United States, for its own national security and for humanitarian imperatives, seeks a world that is free from the humanitarian impact of landmines - - “mine-impact free.” While the “mine free” terminology associated with the Ottawa Convention is viewed by many as inspirational and visionary, it is by definition “absolutist” and not grounded in practical realities. Attempting to achieve a “mine free” status will result in the ever expanding expenditure of resources to find and clear mines that have ever decreasing humanitarian impact. This is a losing proposition that will consume the budgets of every donor and mine-affected country, to declining effect. Given the finite resources of donor governments and the governments of mine-affected countries who must cope with other humanitarian challenges such as disease, poverty, food security, and other dire needs – we, the international community, can not afford the opportunity costs of trying to find the last “million dollar” landmine. Instead, such funds would be much better utilized addressing the far higher numbers of people who are killed every year from other issues found in post-conflict environments.

Instead of focusing on mines, the United States has directed its programmatic efforts toward people, attempting to develop and support programmatic responses based upon the analysis of the most pressing humanitarian impacts generated by all explosive remnants of war, not just landmines. We will not support programs that aim to clear the last landmine. But we will support well-run programs that address the most pressing needs first and have in place plans for a long-term, limited response mechanism to meet any emerging needs.

For example, in Costa Rica, Djibouti, Macedonia, and Namibia, all of which suffered from varying degrees of landmine infestation, people are safely getting on with their lives again, because those mines and explosive remnants of war that impacted them are gone. Does this mean that every single landmine in some remote piece of jungle in Costa Rica or uninhabited stretch of desert in Djibouti has been cleared? No. But both countries are now devoting their budgets and energies to other pressing issues, and they have the national capacity to deal with any remaining explosives that may be encountered.

Besides landmines, we must also contend with the other detritus of former conflicts, which are often precursors to new ones. Prominent among these is the problem of unauthorized access to surplus military-grade small arms and light weapons used to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people each year, but which receive only a minor fraction of the funding devoted to clearing landmines.
Similarly, another looming humanitarian threat in many parts of the world is that of inadequately maintained and poorly secured munitions depots, abandoned ordnance, and unexploded ordnance of all types. In most post-conflict countries, more people now come to harm through interaction with unexploded ordnance of all types than through landmines. Poor maintenance and handling of stored munitions contributes to spontaneous explosions of catastrophic proportions. A case in point is Mozambique, which had 645 killed and injured when a munitions depot blew up outside the capital, Maputo, in March 2007. Contrast this with the 35 known landmine casualties in Mozambique for all of 2006.

Therefore, resources should be allocated in proportion to the threat. By this measure it is clear that global funding streams available to address the hazards of conventional munitions and weapons are not aligned with global needs. If the “market” for funding is allowed to operate efficiently, we should expect that in the coming years fewer funds will be going into mine action and more into the destruction of other illicit or unnecessary conventional munitions, unexploded ordnance, and small arms.

Facing the Future Problem

The United States is taking steps now to prepare for this future. In 2003, the budget for the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, which is but one part of the interagency U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program, was $62 million. Congressional authorities at that time limited these funds only to mine action and, less so, to the destruction of small arms and light weapons. In fiscal year 2008, the budget request for this Office is $121 million with expanded authorities to address larger conventional weapons and munitions.

The United States and indeed all others who have been involved in humanitarian mine action should step back and reflect together on the future. In doing so we should focus on the needs of communities and countries impacted by war. Approaches based on a specific weapon or munition are only useful up to a point, but can be detrimental to common goals if they result in a diversion or misallocation of resources away from larger problems. During this reflection process we need to ask ourselves: when has enough been spent on mine action? What residual capacities, if any, need to reside in a country once major mine clearance operations are no longer essential? And what steps can and should be taken to address the broader constellation of challenges posed by all illicit or unnecessary conventional munitions and weapons? Communities and nations impacted by the harmful residue of war; landmines, unexploded or abandoned ordnance, and small arms and light weapons, deserve that these questions be answered objectively and in a manner that best protects civilians, not from any one single munition, but from all of them.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/anti_personnel_landmine/ 2007-11-21T16:04:00-05:00 International Education Creates International Understanding Maura Harty is the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

International Education Week, November 12-16, 2007, was a time to recognize and celebrate the many ways in which international education enriches our communities, our nation and the thousands of students and scholars who take part in international exchange each year. During International Education Week and throughout the year, the U.S. Department of State is proud of its role in supporting international and American students as they advance understanding through international exchange.

The Department of State promotes and facilitates the travel of international students and scholars to our shores. In 2007, we issued a record number of student and exchange visitor visas – over 650,000 – more than 10 percent up from last year. According to the Institute for International Education, over 223,000 American students studied abroad in countries on every continent in 2006 (the last year for which data is available).

According to the Department of Commerce, international education is America’s fifth largest service export – bigger than medical services. International students contribute over $14.5 billion to the institutions they attend and the surrounding communities – up a billion dollars from last year, and the largest increase to date. Their research and scholarship spurs innovation and fuels our knowledge-based economy. Even more important is the priceless impact of the interpersonal exchanges created through international education. The best advertisement for America is America. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has observed, “Our country has no more valuable asset internationally than the friendship of millions of young people, citizens and leaders around the world who understand the United States because they have studied there.”

International education empowers people. Every person who studies abroad is, in effect, an ambassador for his or her country, expanding their personal horizons and the horizons of others. Through exchange programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, many thousands of international students and scholars have felt the transformative power of international education to bring people closer. These include students like Mahid from the Philippines, who studied in the United States on an exchange program for students from countries with significant Muslim populations, who said, “I feel fulfilled and proud of myself because I have introduced my culture to the Americans; I have bridged cultures!”

The Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has increased the transparency, efficiency, and predictability of the visa process across the board, with a special focus on student and exchange visitor visas. We provide more information on our websites to guide students through the visa process. We made it possible for students to apply for their visas up to 120 days before the start of their programs. Every embassy and consulate has established programs to put students at the front of the line, so that they can start their programs on time. The overwhelming majority of qualified students are issued visas, over 95 percent within a few days of application.

We have achieved much, but recognize we must do more. As the number of potential students continues to grow, we will continue to work to make the process smarter, and implement other changes to ensure that America’s welcome to international students begins with the visa process.

Changed visa procedures are only part of the story. We also have to get the word out about opportunities for international study to students in America and around the world. Officials from the U.S. Departments of State and Education have led delegations of college and university presidents overseas to meet with students and academic administrators. Embassies around the world are reaching out to high schools, universities and vocational and technical schools. Department scholarship programs open the world to American undergraduate and graduate students, and the National Security Language Initiative encourages American students to speak critical foreign languages.

To international students, I hope that you will consider furthering your studies in the United States. My pledge is that our welcome will begin with prompt, efficient, courteous service at the Embassy or consulate.

To American students, I hope that you will consider studying abroad as part of your academic programs, so that you too can share a little bit of America with the international community, and build lasting ties between the United States and other countries.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/international_education/ 2007-11-19T17:54:00-05:00 Taking Action To Save Our “Planet in Peril” Claudia A. McMurray is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment and Science.

I recently watched with great interest the CNN documentary, “Planet in Peril”, as it covered in-depth many of the issues that my staff and I work on daily. I don’t think that many people know that the U.S. Department of State is actively involved in a wide range of international environmental issues, such as over fishing of our oceans, protecting coral reefs, climate change, and wildlife conservation. I have a strong personal commitment to combating the illegal trade of endangered species.

That is why I was so pleased that CNN aired an in-depth documentary which highlighted the need for us all to work together to stop the illegal trade. Wildlife trafficking is an insidious crime that threatens species with extinction, contributes to the spread of diseases and is often linked to organized crime, involving many of the same culprits and smuggling routes as trafficking in arms, drugs, and persons.

Many governments are very much committed to combating these crimes – and at the highest levels. To address this problem the United States formed the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT), a unique, voluntary public-private coalition of likeminded governments and organizations that share a common purpose. Coalition partners include: Australia, Canada, Chile, the Republic of India, the United Kingdom, the United States and thirteen international non-governmental organizations (NGO), including Wildlife Alliance. The Coalition’s goal is to stop the flow of these products by strengthening wildlife law enforcement, reducing consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife, and catalyzing high-level political will to fight wildlife trafficking.

To meet these goals, the U.S.-led coalition has been active on a number of fronts. First, we helped create the Wildlife Enforcement Network of the ASEAN nations. The network is designed to improve communication and the sharing of information among countries that share borders and cannot combat the illegal activity alone. Just in the short time this network has been operating there have been many success stories, including returning 48 orangutans to Indonesia from Thailand, and breaking up several cross-boarder smuggling rings.

The U.S. government has also been actively involved in training customs inspectors, police, park and forest officials, prosecutors and judges in methods of apprehending criminals, protecting important evidence and presenting cases in court – all to ensure that criminals are actually punished for this activity.

Finally, the U.S. and CAWT are working to increase public awareness so that consumers will stop buying these products. Last year, Secretary of State Rice appointed Bo Derek as her Special Envoy for Wildlife Trafficking Issues. Just last week, Ms. Derek and I traveled to Miami to bring attention to the issue. In the near future, a Public Service Announcement by Harrison Ford will appear worldwide.

As you can see then, the United States and other governments are very engaged on this issue. Can we use more help? You bet. We hope programs like “Planet in Peril” and the individual efforts of everyone around the world to stop buying these products will move us closer to ending the illegal trade.

For more information on the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking, please visit our website at http://www.cawtglobal.org/cawt/public/home.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/planet_in_peril/ 2007-11-05T15:29:00-05:00 International Obligations and U.S. Law John B. Bellinger III is the Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State.

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a significant case involving U.S. treaty obligations. The Government urged the Court to affirm the President’s authority to order compliance with a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The case was argued by the Solicitor General, and the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser helped to draft the briefs.

The case before the Supreme Court involved the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol. Under the Vienna Convention, a country that is party to the Convention and that arrests a national of another party must inform the person arrested that he can seek assistance from a consular officer of his country. The Optional Protocol allows states who disagree about what the Vienna Convention requires to take their dispute to the ICJ. And the UN Charter, another treaty binding the United States, obligates its parties to comply with decisions of the ICJ.

In 2004, in a case brought by Mexico against the United States, the ICJ decided that José Medellín, a Mexican national convicted by the Texas courts of two rape-murders, should be afforded a new hearing by judicial authorities to find out whether his trial had been prejudiced by the failure of the Texas police to tell him that he could contact a Mexican consul.

The United States disagreed with the ICJ’s conclusion, because the United States believes that the Vienna Convention does not create a right that a defendant can raise in a criminal proceeding. Lawyers with extensive experience in defending persons accused of serious crimes, including murder, represented Medellín throughout these proceedings, and we believe Medellin got all the benefit of the protections of the U.S. legal system.

However, the obligation to comply with a decision of the ICJ is independent of the government’s views about the soundness of the Court’s decision and the character of the person who benefits from the decision. Accordingly, President Bush determined that we would comply with ICJ determination by having the Texas courts implement the decision. At the same time, to ensure that the United States will not have to wrestle with any future erroneous ICJ decisions, we exercised our right to withdraw from the Optional Protocol, the treaty that gave the ICJ the authority to hear cases of this sort.

In becoming a party to the Vienna Convention, the United States was not of the view that our state and local police were mistreating foreign nationals. The U.S. Constitution provides all persons accused of crimes, foreigners equally with our own citizens, extensive rights from the moment of first contact with the police through arrest and trial to the carrying out of any sentence. What we wanted was protection for U.S. citizens when they find themselves abroad and in trouble with the police. Exactly because not all countries are as protective of the rights of criminal suspects as we are, we wanted a legal basis to ensure that American officials can learn promptly of charges brought against Americans in foreign countries and monitor their treatment.

It is important to emphasize that the likelihood that other countries will comply with this international obligation depends heavily on U.S. performance under the treaty. We agreed in a treaty to abide by the decisions of the ICJ. Were the United States not to comply with the ICJ’s order, other countries could similarly argue that they do not need to respect the interests of our citizens.

When the President made his determination that Texas should provide Medellín with a new hearing to comply with the ICJ’s decision, he was doing what Congress expected him to do, namely exercising his authority under the U.S. Constitution to effect compliance with a U.S. treaty obligation. The Texas courts disagreed, which is why the Supreme Court is hearing the case. We look forward to the Supreme Court’s decision, which should come down some time this winter.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/international_law/ 2007-10-16T21:53:00-05:00