24 Jul Who Attended Obama’s Speech in Berlin? (Hint: Not US Diplomats!)
I was struck by this piece tucked away in today’s Washington Post, noting that Pat Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management at the State Department, had to remind diplomatic personnel in Germany that they were prohibited from attending Barack Obama’s speech today in Berlin. It is a mark of just how unprecedented Obama’s current overseas visit is, mixing as it does official travel as a U.S. Senator with travel that is funded and staffed by his campaign. When I was in the Foreign Service, I never had to face this question. (I worked on President Clinton’s 1994 state visit to Berlin — which included a speech at the Brandenburg Gate.) The general rule for U.S. personnel overseas is an absolute prohibition on partisan activities. As explained in the article, the Hatch Act restrictions that apply to U.S. Government personnel stateside are more permissive than the Foreign Affairs Manual’s prohibition:
AFSA [American Foreign Service Association] representatives met with Kennedy and State Department legal representatives Tuesday after two unnamed embassy employees complained to the union that the prohibition — in an internal statement issued after some stationed there had asked about attending the rally — violated their civil rights.
Kennedy cited section 4123.3 of the third volume of the lengthy manual of personnel regulations for the Foreign Service, which says: “A U.S. citizen employee, spouse, or family member shall not engage in partisan political activities abroad.”
In the interview, Kennedy described the regulation as “a standing policy,” although he acknowledged that “I don’t believe we’ve ever had to interpret this before. None of us thinking about this could come up with a precedent” for the Obama campaign rally.
He said that despite the manual’s prohibition on “spouses and family members,” the departmental interpretation was that only Foreign Service members were barred from attending the event.
Given that last comment permitting family members to attend, and the fact that German nationals employed by the embassy are not under the same prohibition as US citizen employees, the diplomatic personnel who raised the issue will have lots of first-person reports to fall back on.
I haven’t had a chance to read the full transcript yet, but I hear that Obama resisted the urge to toss in a German phrase or two. Very smart move. Setting aside the obvious glee with which Obama’s political opponents would replay clips of Obama speaking German (sigh), there is always the risk of getting it wrong. President Clinton, who studied German in college and was comfortable uttering a few phrases auf Deutsch, included the phrase “Alles ist moeglich; Berlin ist frei!” (anything is possible; Berlin is free!) in his 94 speech. It seemed a nice rhetorical flourish and innocent enough. Only problem was, the tagline for a Toyota radio and television spot airing at the time included “Alles ist moeglich!” That fact, lost on the U.S. and international press corps, became a cheeky sub-theme in the press coverage in Germany, much to the chagrin of everyone who worked to make the speech — the first by a US president in reunified Berlin — a signal moment in Clinton’s transatlantic policy.
That’s fascinating – one of those understories that you need to have been a diplomat or DOS person to pick up on. At first blush, the general policy for US diplomats overseas seems to me a reasonably prudent one.
For some reason, everyone neglects to mention that Obama spoke at a Free Concert.
Maybe all those thousands of young Germans turned up for the two bands that were playing instead of coming to hear a speach in english.
Nah, Obama’s charisma is so powerful it transcends language.
More Kool Aid anyone?
As a foreign service brat, I am disturbed by the regulation covering spouses and family members actions. In the dinosaur days of the 50’s Foregin Service Officer evaluations included evaluations of whether the spouse was “the hostest with the mostest”. Given that situation, spouses sued and at one point were given a right to a pension for their work for the State Dept. So I wonder if this duty to refrain for the family members could be seen as a burden of a similar kind, maybe someday entitling those family members for compensation in exchange for being required to refrain from partisan political activity. I mean the kds and spouse do not pick the Foreign Service Officer’s job so why should they be constrained without compensation?
Best,
Ben
Ben, I think that very controversial history of evaluations of families may, in part, be behind the current interpretation of the regs so as not to restrict the political activities of family members. And I agree that the USG should generally not be constraining the acts of those who are not compensated.
I also agree, Ken, that it is a perfectly reasonable and prudent regulation. And it reflects a once-strong tradition in American diplomacy that partisanship ends at the water’s edge. In fact, some former Secretaries of State made a point of avoiding political activities when if office (party fundraisers, campaigning, etc.)
Those interested in the musical acts that preceded the speech, they were reggae singer Patrice and the band Reamonn. I’ll let readers (and listeners) judge whether the Germans have finally moved on from their inexplicable love affair with David Hasselhoff, who was once a proven crowd builder in Germany. (Best Hasselhoff music video ever is here.)
Thanks Peggy,
That such regulation remains on the books after that spouse litigation is really amazing. The interpretation of that regulation of course is nonsense – the plain meaning of the text is clear. This kind of interpretation process allows discretion to some minion in the State Department to shift the interpretation “when they can get away with it”. Standing there on the books, it has a chilling effect on foreign service families.
At a minimum, there ought to be additional compensation for the foreign service officer in exchange for the muzzle on the famil. It would then be kind of an agency thing where the FSO would be promising to keep his/her family in line. I would imagine that promise would have to be extracted with significant consideration though given the independence streak of foreign service family members. Otherwise, a regulation requiring silence is a subsidy to the government – bargaining away free speech. I hope someone sees the irony in bargaining away free speech of family of an FSO representing a state with such a strong First Amendment history.
What are they thinking?
Best,
Ben