Last month, we held a discussion on the practice of big contributors and bundlers becoming politically appointed ambassadors despite sometimes having little (or no) foreign policy experience and not speaking the language of the host country.  I planned to write an entire post on it, but the sixteen comments pretty much said everything I would have said.  I’d like to just share one quick link on the subject.  According to Open Secrets:

“The 19 ambassadors that CRP has found in our campaign contribution database, along with their spouses and children, have given more than $98,200 to Obama personally, bundled at least $3.4 million for his 2008 presidential run and bundled another $1.4 million for his inauguration.”

These also aren’t new kids on the fundraising block:

“The new nominees for ambassadors to Belize, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Romania and Switzerland — along with their spouses and dependent children — have contributed at least $637,800 to federal candidates, parties and committees since 1989, CRP has found. Nearly that entire sum has gone to Democrats, including $32,775 to Obama himself and $8,300 to former primary opponent and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Look on the bright side though, the U.S. isn’t the only country that wraps up money with diplomatic positions.  First Diplomatic offers to negotiate diplomatic titles for people:

“This diplomatic appointment and passport program is for persons of wealth and means, who are serious and can provide the host country a useful service in return for the appointment : having an office as the Honorary Consulate, host visiting dignitaries from the country. Sometimes this “useful service” is as simple as giving the right amount of money to the right people. We offer legal assistance in applying for citizenship and a diplomatic passport. Several small countries and island countries grant a diplomatic passport and an appointment for people who are able to match the country’s criteria and who can provide the necessary contribution. Active positions (Consul, Vice Consul, etc) have serious requirements, that is why honorary positions (Honorary Consul, Honorary Ambassador) are very popular among medium and large business owners who want to protect their business and have much more opportunities than a normal citizen. Diplomatic passport holders bear diplomatic immunity, which is recognized within 192 countries of the world UN members.”

As Iran undergoes the worst protests since the revolution, I’m so thankful we do not have an embassy in Tehran.  Aside from concerns about embassy security (that would be huge), on the policy side, we’re not nearly as visible without a presence there.  While some are saying it’s the CIA, the simple lack of an official U.S. presence there seems to be calming hegemonic blame.

Of course, some know about the secret conspiracy of John McCain, George Soros, NGOs and satellite TV (as seen here a la Shrek):

What is pay disparity?

Federal employees serving in Washington DC get “comparability pay.”  This is a bit more than 20% that is supposed to bring federal pay to within five percent of private sector pay.  Because of the way the law was written, however, Foreign Service officers serving overseas don’t qualify.  That means, that even if you’re serving in a 20% pay differential country  like Bosnia or Burkina Faso you’ll be taking a pay cut.  Indeed, diplomats working at 25% the fabled “outer Mongolia” are only getting slightly more to tempt them to go to a place known for being cold, desolate, unimportant, and generally terrible (no offense to the Mongolian people, but that’s clearly the reputation).  I know, you’re thinking, but you get housing, right?  Well, we do, but 1. spouses have a hard time working overseas and 2. all those other folks assigned to embassies other than diplomats (various law enforcement, etc.) do get the comparability pay.  AFSA has an FAQ you can check out if you’re interested.

The phase in

If the bill passes the senate, it will be phased in over three years, so there won’t be a huge immediate increase:

The locality-based comparability payment payable to a member of the Service under this section shall–

•  
  `(1) beginning on the first day of the first pay period that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, be equal to 33.33 percent of the payment which would otherwise apply under subsection (a);

•  
  `(2) beginning on the first day of the first pay period in April 2010, be equal to 66.67 percent of the payment which would otherwise apply under subsection (a); and

•  
  `(3) beginning on the first day of the first pay period in fiscal year 2011 and each subsequent fiscal year, be equal to the payment determined under subsection (a).

Just needs to pass the Senate

So, we’re halfway there, right?  I’m a little concerned that AFSA (the diplomats’ union) hasn’t been trumpeting this more, pay disparity has been a key issue for them, and if it looked good in the senate, I’d expect to hear more from them.  Also, there has been some conservative opposition, for fiscal and moral reasons.  Anyway, keep you fingers crossed!

In proper Hegemonist fashion, I’m going to share a few quotes that talk about how great America is:

• “Many western European countries in 2000 had a higher percentage of poor citizens than the US; not only Mediterranean countries, but also Britain, Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. Unemployment benefits in the US, often portrayed as derisory in the European media, are actually higher than in many European nations. Greece, Britain, Italy and Iceland spend less than the US on unemployment, measured per capita.”
• “A higher percentage of Americans have graduated from university and from secondary school than in any European nation.”
• “The US lavishes more money per child at all levels of education than any western European nation.”
• “The average American borrowed more library books in 2001 than their peers in Germany, Austria, Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg, France and throughout the Mediterranean. Not content with borrowing, Americans also buy more books per head than any Europeans for whom we have numbers. And they write more books per capita than most Europeans too.”
• “The French suffer over six times the American rate of bribery.”
• “[Americans] recycle as well as the Finns and the French, and better than the British, Greeks and the Portuguese.”
• “…the percentage of national territory protected in the US is about double that of France, Britain or even Sweden.”
• “Granted, Americans are more likely to think that their country is better than most others…and a larger fraction of Americans admit that there are aspects of their country that shame them than do the Germans, Austrians, Spanish, French, Danes and Finns [Comment.  Really?  More than the Germans?!  End comment].”
• “More American pupils agree with the statement that science helps them to understand the world than in any European nations other than Italy and Portugal.”
• “No one is arguing that America is Sweden. But nor is Britain, Italy, or even France. And since when does Sweden represent “Europe”—at least anymore than the ethnically homogenous, socially liberal state of Vermont does America?”

The full article is a bit more balanced, aiming to show that the U.S. is simply on par with European countries taken as a group, but I’m a patriot [this blog was nearly named American Apologist, and I toyed with American Jingoist; I hope ya’ll agree that The Hegemonist is more accessible, despite the big word].  Anyway, since those of you reading this part clearly didn’t click the first link, click here and read the full article.

It gives several good reasons:

1. Ahmadinejad has excellent conservative credentials, they’ll follow him and reformers won’t oppose a move like this
2. Opposition to America has been one of the pillars of the Iranian revolution, changing it will shake the regime to the core, and could call into question its legitimacy.  Ahmadinejad could ensure that opposition continue, just in a more organized fashion (i.e., even though we had diplomatic relations with the USSR, there was always opposition).
3. Iranian presidents don’t have a lot of leeway with fundamental policies; Iran’s supreme leader would have to ok any change, and Ahmadinejad is more likely to have the trust of the religious establishment
4. The chief reason Iran’s last president, the reformist Khatami, failed to reestablish ties was that he was largely constrained by conservatives

It’s a view that I hadn’t heard before, but one that seems quite logical.  (Another pearl of wisdom from the piece is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will be in the hands of the revolutionary guard, which could completely change the domestic political system…interesting stuff.)

*Nixon-in-China (from Wikipedia):

Because Nixon had an undisputed reputation of being a staunch anti-Communist, he was largely immune to any criticism of being "soft on Communism" by figures on the right of American politics. The phrase "Nixon going to China" is thus an analogy that refers to the unique ability that hardline politicians have to challenge political taboos and third-rail issues. Only a proven hardline right-wing politician can succeed in challenging a conservative sacred cow and vice versa for left-wingers.

FPRI published an interesting retrospective, looking at American human rights diplomacy with China since the events.  The author, Amy Gadsden, points out that the main currency since the events have been prisoner releases.  Before any international event, the U.S. requests that some political prisoner, usually a human rights activist of some sort, be released.  Traditionally, China will comply, but will do nothing more to reform. 

China’s Human Rights Grievances

Last February, Human Rights Watch released a letter advising that the Secretary bring up several specific human rights points.  I’ll list them here for those who don’t know, for those that do, please feel free to skip to the next subtitle…

• Tibet and Xinjiang (i.e. Uyghurstan)
• Torture
• Press Censorship
• Abusing Human Rights Activists
• Extrajudicial Detention

Does the new administration care?

Ok, maybe that was overly alarmist, but we all remember Secretary Clinton’s remarks during her first visit to China,

“Successive administrations and Chinese governments have been poised back and forth on these issues, and we have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis…”

Gadsden also points out that prior to the Beijing Olympics, no prisoners were asked for, and none were released.

Can the U.S. effect change with civil society?

I’ve written before about U.S. human rights efforts.  Gadsden points out that throughout much of our history of pushing for human rights in China, U.S. diplomats and officials have sat across from stone-faced communist bureaucrats.  These men (and I understand they are nearly all men) have no incentive to change, and no patience to listen to a bunch of foreigners.  She suggests the U.S. begin to work with China’s burgeoning civil society.  She says,

“China has a small but capable NGO movement focused on a range of local, national, and even international concerns, from public health to environmental awareness to discrimination against migrants and minorities. The rights consciousness movement has energized lawyers and citizens to take up sensitive legal cases and push the legal system to abide by Chinese law and international norms. Every day, bloggers and netizens use the Internet to expose corruption and highlight rights violations. And even in the area of political reform, there are brave Chinese citizens who are vying to get nominated as independent candidates for local people’s congresses. American policy toward China has not ignored these developments, but it has not made a priority of them either.”

We haven’t made a priority of them.  It’s unfortunate, but I haven’t seen a lot of U.S. embassy interaction with civil society.  Maybe it’s just the areas in which I’ve served, or that fact that I’ve never worked in a public affairs section, but I think that’s something of a weakness in our foreign policy efforts.  We’ve been trying to change that for sometime, and this may be another reason to prioritize that change.

Can the U.S. effect change through classical diplomacy?

I’ve also written about this administration’s China policy, even pointing out that, “what sticks and carrots we have remain to be seen.”  China’s line has always been that it considers human rights part of its domestic affairs, and that it does not tolerate foreign interference in sovereignty.  Last week, however, Matt Stone pointed out that China has a growing stake in U.S. domestic affairs, growing increasingly concerned that our inflation will damage Chinese currency reserves.  So who knows, maybe in a few years we’ll have a carrot.

Your thoughts?

I always love to ask what you think, dear reader.   Are either of these two approaches likely to have any effect whatsoever on Chinese human rights?  Are there other options that could be further explored?  Should the U.S. even care?