Michael: Week 7 – March 14th to 18th

Besides the Early Alerts, during my seventh week at the Media Hub I received a tour of the Consular Office, attended a press briefing and conference on eVehicles, and was shown around the Public Diplomacy section of the Bilateral embassy.

This week we continued to focus on Libya for the Early Alert. Many continued to debate the merits of a no-fly zone in Libya, and bemoaned the lack of leadership in the West, with Europe divided and the US taking an equivocal position. Early in the week many were still skeptical of whether the UN would ever endorse the imposition of a no-fly zone, but on Friday all the papers noted that the “UN gives the green light to use force against Qaddafi in Libya” (El Mundo).

We also discussed for several days the earthquake in Japan. Of course, there was a ton of coverage of the crisis in the European press, but most of it was irrelevant for us. This is because Washington wants us to focus on just three main angles for the Early Alert: what the European press is saying on the US, what it is saying on the EU/European policies, and what rifts, gaps, alliances, etc they are seeing within Europe, between the US and Europe, and between the US/EU and other parts of the world. For that reason we limited our press analysis to discussing the strengthening of anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe that resulted from the crisis. As Spain's Publico put it, across Europe “The nuclear debate explodes.” Coverage primarily centered on Germany, where public opinion against nuclear energy was quite strong even before the crisis, but in many other countries governments also made sure to announce new safety measures or safety reviews. We also wrote a few general sections on speculation about the potential impact of the earthquake on the global economic recovery.

On Tuesday morning Todd Stern, the United States Special Envoy for Climate Change, came into our office for a video interview, but since I was busy working on the Early Alert I didn’t have a chance to meet him or see much of the interview. The next day I did get a chance to sit in on some interviews – in this case, of former Peacecore volunteers.

On Thursday I had the opportunity to get a tour of the American Consular office in Brussels and sit in on a couple of interviews with people seeking visas. Officially, the Consular Office's top priority is assisting Americans. For instance, they help if someone loses their passport, they return bodies in cases of Americans dying abroad, they provide assistance to Americans arrested abroad, and in the event of emergencies they help evacuate Americans. All that said, what winds up taking up most of the Brussels Consular Office’s time is screening visa applications from non-Americans. Those applying for such visas generally are not Belgians, as Belgium is part of the US visa waiver program (meaning that after completing a quick online registration most Belgian citizens can travel to the US for up to 90 days in a 180-day period without a visa). Instead, most of those who come to the Consular Office for US visas are non-EU citizens who are for whatever reason in Brussels. Besides security checks, for these applicants, the bulk of whom come from third world countries, the main task of the Consular Office is to evaluate whether they are likely to return to their home country or whether there is reason to suspect that they will illegally overstay their visa to remain in the US.

Especially since it wasn’t what I was expecting, I found my visit to the Consular Office very rewarding, and perhaps will try to go back there to sit in on more visa applicant interviews (my time on the 17th was cut short by needing to return early for the Early Alert, which is still due an hour early because of Europe hasn’t yet moved to daylight savings time). I’m not sure whether I would like doing consular work myself, but if I do pursue a career in the Foreign Service I would essentially be required to complete at least one tour of Consular duty. At any rate, I imagine it must be pretty satisfying to have a job where each day you assist overseas Americans and aid non-Americans in visiting the US, while protecting the country against possible threats.

Thursday afternoon I sat in on a press briefing at the Hub. Press briefings are off-the-record meetings between journalists and officials that allow officials to give journalists background information that can't be published. The point of this is to help journalists better understand the situation in question so that they can ask better questions of interviewees. The press briefing I attended featured the Department of Energy's Advisor on eVehicle Technologies, Keith Hardy. Mr. Hardy currently leads the Grid Interaction Tech Team – a joint Department of Energy, auto industry and utility team to address technical issues of the electric vehicle-grid interface – and leads the International Cooperation task.

Later in the afternoon, Mr Hardy hosted a public workshop with his EU counterparts and industry leaders in a meeting room across from the Media Hub to discuss US-EU technical cooperation on eVehicles and continuing efforts in the U.S. to meet the climate, clean energy and oil dependency challenge through the use of innovative technologies. I found this conference very interesting, particularly as there was a strong transatlantic-angle I wasn’t expecting beforehand. Everyone present emphasized that US-EU agreement on regulations and standards makes life much easier for manufacturers on both ends of the Atlantic, and in the eVehical context this concurrence has the added bonus of speeding the development and adoption of eVehicle technology in America and Europe. Fortunately, the message I took from the discussion was that we don't really need to worry about harmonizing eVehicle standards between the US and EU, as the two have been working in close cooperation. However, they are quite concerned at the lack of agreement between the US/EU and Asia (specifically, China). Part of this disconnect comes from the fact that while the government is the sole body behind creating standards in China, in the US and EU standards are followed voluntarily, and companies, rather than governments, take the lead in developing them (because, after all, it makes more sense to leave the development of industry standards to the experts, the manufacturers).

Another interesting point was that officials in both the US and EU agree it's a good idea to share technology when it doesn't adversely impact market competition – for instance, Mr Hardy showed at the conference a standardized “smart meter” developed jointly in the US and EU that can be used in eVehicles in all markets (though at the moment China is pushing its own very similar but slightly modified so as to be incompatible smart meter). The development of this smart meter fits in with the goal of governments helping to accelerate the adoption and proliferation of eVehicles. Overall, harmonization of eVehicle standards is a good example of the type of transatlantic issue that doesn’t receive much attention (certainly isn’t as notable as a major trade or political dispute), but nevertheless has a major impact on Americans and Europeans – and if done right, will help speed the adoption of eVehicles in both the US and EU.

Friday was a rather bizarre day in the office, as half-way through working on the Early Alert the Microsoft Outlook server crashed, thereby cutting off our access to State Department email. Luckily we had already received submissions for the other embassies, so we could still complete the Early Alert, but when it came time to submit it we could not access the usual distribution list. Instead, we used Gmail to send copies to a few senior officials whose emails we had saved outside Outlook. Eventually when the server came back on online I submitted the report to the rest of our distribution list.

While the server was down, Friday afternoon I went on a tour of the Public Diplomacy (PD) section for the bilateral embassy above the Media Hub. Something interesting that I hadn’t really thought about before is that Belgium is unusual in having two separate media markets – one in French and one in Dutch. As a result, the PD staff is split between those who cover the French media and those who cover the Dutch media. English-language content on Dutch TV is generally subtitled while on French-language media they are generally dubbed over – meaning that French TV has to have time to prepare an audio translation of what the Ambassador or other officials say, while Dutch TV, only needing to produce a transcript to provide subtitles, doesn’t mind conducting English-language interviews. As the French press often takes a pass on non-French language speakers, this results in US officials receiving much more exposure and coverage on in the Dutch-language press in Belgium.

The PD department is split between press and cultural sections. Something I learned is that, far from only doing stereotypical cultural exchanges, the cultural section has increasingly been focusing on policy work, and in fact winds up working on pretty much any issues that isn't explicitly media-related. Part of this is outreach to locals. The goal isn't to try and completely convince everyone of the US position, but rather to nuance the debate, emphasizing that the US is not monolithic. For instance, on the Kyoto climate change protocol several years ago, there was a negative reaction to the US position and a perception that America is not doing anything. In response, the PD section made an effort to show that in fact the US does have many policies in place to protect the environment.

Overall, I really appreciated having a chance to visit the bilateral public diplomacy section, and gained a better sense of how the more traditional country-specific media sections operate. After the Outlook server came back online and I was able to send out the Early Alerts, I left the Hub a bit early to attend the ECON section's happy hour, thrown in advance for the last day of its intern.

May 2-6, The death of Osama bin Laden

In DC the death of Osama bin Laden had a huge effect: there were celebrations in front of the White House, a sudden burst of patriotism, and security was multiplied. The day after I heard the news about his death, I was presented with several different viewpoints about what it means for the US, whether our reaction was appropriate, and what they think will be happening in the future. This is something I wrote while I was explaining how the event impacted me.

For the past two days I have been reflecting on the death of Al-Qaeda founder and national enemy Osama bin Laden and what it means for America. After hours of reflection, I am still unable to understand the depth of the emotions that it has engendered in me.

This death confounds me because it is impossible for me to conceptualize the levels of hatred that prompted 9/11. It is difficult to accept that killing Osama bin Laden will do nothing in bringing those who were lost on that day back; that their families will continue to live with the gaping holes of their absence. It is hard to deny that ridding the world of one of the most deplorable human beings does not bring us unfettered satisfaction because of the despair that is innately part of the story. I believe that the confusion toward an appropriate response does not signal that I am un-American, but that I am trying to understand the event in terms of the fabric upon which America is built- the idea of taking the high road, of avoiding violence and destruction whenever possible. Of having a conscience that sees moral qualms with taking human life in all cases. The continuation of the tragedy of 9/11 reopens a well of emotion that is still incomprehensible to many people. It ignites emotions in us that we do not want to feel; of hatred, of despair, of darkness. It recalls one of the worst days in American history.

Our culture has learned the hard way that savagery only begets savagery. This is why Americans try to reject the impulses that often come along with loss and fear- from racism to marginalization to radicalism. Violence and destruction vex us, regardless of the legitimacy of the cause, and it is hard to accept when that is this only way.

Osama bin Laden was a mass murderer. He is attributed with the deaths of thousands of citizens, he was an example of the effects of a perverted sense of religious radicalism and its ability to poison others, he was the personification of evil. He took not only the lives of those lost on 9/11, but permanently altered the American psyche.

It is because I am not wired to deal with the amount of hatred that the situation has confronted us with that I hesitate. The statement “I am so happy we killed him” is counter intuitive. It feels strange to say, because the statement in and of itself is against our cultural inclination to mourn death and destruction, to regret the pervasiveness of it in our society. It does not adequately express the reaction that while we are happy that bin Laden is gone, we are overwhelmed with sadness that the events passed the way they did, starting on September 11 of 2001 but stemming back for years before that.

Bin Laden is better off dead. Indeed, it seems that the world would be better if he had never lived. However, it is not this thought that torments me. It is the act of killing, of possibility of engendering an even more violent response, of the fact that he may now be martyred by his followers and used as a justification for more violence, that I struggle with. It is the fact that it seemed to be the only solution to the problem. It is the fact that the tragedy happened at all.

I support America and the American troops in the decisions made regarding the death of bin Laden. I doubt that many people in the international community will understand the visceral reaction of celebration that many Americans felt- a reaction that can only be understood when one witnesses the horror of a deliberate attack on their country- their friends, their families, their lives- their understanding of the world as a whole. It is a reaction that can only be understood when one risks his or her life, and the eternal heartbreak of his or her family when they decide to serve our country. The impulse to cheer or to cry both stem from the tangle of emotions that each person associates with the day that delineated pre and post 9/11 America. The onslaught of emotion that Americans experienced was the result of 10 years of a new way of life, of a new fear, of a wound that will never fully heal. The death of bin Laden will not heal the wound, but I hope that it will begin to give closure to the families that have been rasped by the incomprehensible devastation of 9/11. If reflection on the past events fills you with confusion, let it, because to feel the gravitas of the act, to question why it happened and to mourn the destruction in its wake, and to try to understand how it can be avoided in the future is to be truly, unequivocally American.

Michael: Week 6 – March 7th to 11th

During my 6th week at the State Department, I continued on the Early Alerts, sat in on a meeting of section heads at the bilateral embassy to Belgium, and observed a digital media conference between the several Media Hubs and Washington.

Like last week, our main focus for the Early Alerts this week was the continuing crisis in Libya. Each day, many editorials and commentators focused on the big question of whether America and Europe should intervene against Colonel Qaddafi. Most days we were able to write two sections clearly contrasting the arguments of those in favor or against some sort of Western intervention. Those in favor feared that, absent an intervention, Qaddafi might massacre his people, and warned of the regional impact of Qaddafi being allowed to win out against the rebels – which would have clear implications for other Arab leaders contemplating how to react to growing protests and demonstrations. Those opposed to intervention cautioned that the proposed no-fly zone might not be all that effective against Qaddafi’s predominately land-based mercenary army, and that a Western intervention could delegitimize the rebels and turn Arab opinion against the West. Gaining the UN’s green light would clearly help in this regard, but that was seen as unlikely given Chinese and Russian opposition to a military intervention.

Besides the Early Alert, on Wednesday I had the chance to sit in on a meeting of section heads at the bilateral embassy, just as I did previously with the USEU meeting. As before, they briefed the Ambassador on the status of their sections, and the Ambassador briefed the group on overall goals and concerns. Not even working in that embassy, yet alone having the necessary background, I couldn’t follow all of what was being discussed, but it was interesting to see how the Ambassador, who besides being the public face of the US in Belgium is also a manager of a large office, coordinates and supervisors his subordinates. In particular, I observed that the Ambassador both came to the meeting to be briefed by his subordinates on their progress, but also to brief them on the overall mission of the embassy. In short, he functioned as the “big picture” person, pulling together data from the various parts of the embassy to develop an overall idea of where things should be going.

On Thursday, I attended parts of a digital media conference (i.e. over webcam) between people in Washington and the various regional Media Hubs to discuss best practices and more generally how the Hubs should operate between Washington and the various country-specific embassies. The meeting itself, and talking with my supervisors beforehand, gave me a better sense of the position of the Media Hub vis-à-vis other branches of the US government – namely, that the Media Hubs are supposed cover entire regions, rather than countries. For example, you wouldn't have the press section of an individual country embassy cover a large multilateral conference in Asia; instead, the Asian media hub would report on that meeting.