Our friends at Dipnote haven’t had a very good week.

The good news is that they’re trying some new things, including Twitter.  The bad news is that they’ve let Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy tweet her vacation diplomatic mission to Iceland and Croatia.  As Al Kamen noted in WaPo today, Graffy has sounded more like an ugly American than a government official.  Here are a few of Graffy’s greatest tweets:

in Boston now boarding flight to Iceland! forgot gym clothes, forgot bathing suit (possible Blue Lagoon visit).advice: don’t pack in 30 min 7:51 PM Dec 6th from web

Arrived at Reflavik airport–beautiful! Clever–u can buy duty free AFTER landing–big shop open while u wait for luggage. quel marketing! 4:04 AM Dec 7th from web

Renting a bathing suit and getting ready to take the plunge into the geothermal hot springs and smear silica mud on my face 11:53 AM Dec 7th from mobile web

Small world–ran into DCM Neil Klopfenstein just before plunge into Blue Lagoon. Bathing suit not my sartorial choice for first meet! Ack! 4:42 PM Dec 7th from web

I’ve been accused of TMI/oversharing:http://tinyurl.com/5vektk (scroll down 4 my response) shld diplomats stick to policy twitter & cens …… about 12 hours ago from web

Ya think?  Sheesh.

For most of today, Graffy has been tweeting on the fallout from the Kamen piece.

In fairness to Graffy, she is doing what I have argued Dipnote needs to be:  more spontaneous.  As she notes, “this is why diplomats stay off the record and boring.”

That’s true, but there’s a big difference between tweeting about your rented swimsuit and going on the record to discuss U.S. policy.  At no point does Graffy do more that describe what she’s doing.  Yes, that’s part of what Twitter is about, but it’s also about sharing opinions.  Graffy never makes a policy statement — in fact, she doesn’t even explain why she made the trip in the first place.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Dipnote blog hasn’t been having a good run of it either.  A few days ago, they actually asked the following question:

In recent months, there has been talk of Iran’s nuclear capability. So much of our diplomacy centers on the acquisition of nuclear technology.

Do nuclear weapons make the world more or less safe?

Dr. Strangelove, white courtesy phone, please.

I know part of the reason for Dipnote is to provoke dialogue.  And blogs should encourage debate.  But isn’t this kind of, sort of, just maybe, AN INCREDIBLY STOOOOPID QUESTION?  Setting aside the insane notion that nuclear weapons somehow might make us safer, do we really want others to infer that the United States government thinks that nuclear weapons might make the world safer?

And what were they thinking when they wrote that U.S. diplomacy “centers on the acquisition of nuclear technology”?  I think they just might of meant preventing others from acquiring nukes.  At least I hope they did.

You have to wonder where the vetters were for that one.

Maybe they were too busy with this post, from David J. Kramer, the current Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which obviously has been carefully edited to completely squeeze it of all spirit.

Today is International Human Rights Day, the date sixty years ago when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have the privilege of serving as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, so this occasion is especially meaningful to me and to the men and women in my office. We see it as an opportunity to reflect on and rededicate ourselves to the work of protecting and promoting the rights enshrined in the Declaration. President Bush and Secretary Rice have made the promotion of human rights a priority not just for my bureau, but for the entire State Department and our embassies around the world.

Note the careful parsing here:  Dubya and The Condi have made human rights a priority — for DRL, State, and embassies.  But not, apparently, in the United States or facilities under its control.

In other words, go out to other countries and talk about their human rights record.  But for god sakes, whatever you do, don’t mention torture.  Or rendition.  Or interrogation.  Or indefinite detention.  Oh wait — that’s wrong.  You can mention them, just don’t bring up our own policies.

I have not had the opportunity to meet Kramer, but I do feel bad for him.  From what I’ve heard, he’s a good guy trying to do a job that is tough even in normal times.  And under Bush, he has to go out and preach the gospel of human rights to people who believe that America has no moral standing.

It’s not his fault the Administration he currently serves is run by individuals who may have committed war crimes.  It’s not his fault that many around the world view the United States as part of the problem and not part of the solution.  It’s not his fault that he must go out and tell other countries to “do as we say and not as we do.”  And it isn’t his fault that he still must pretend that none of that is true.

Look on the bright side, though.  At least he didn’t write about his swim attire.

Related posts

• Powell, Obama, and Torture
• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• State Department Watch: The Bizarro Blog
• State Department Watch: Fed up with Bush?
• Prosecuting Those Responsible for War Crimes

So there’s a new post up over at Dippynote, the State Department’s sometimes entertaining blog — or as I like to call it, the Bizarro Undiplomatic.

Today, Ambassador Gaddi Vasquez, the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Organizations in Rome, put up a post on his trip to Colombia, where he’s meeting with local entrepreneurs.  It’s a fine post and a worthwhile subject.

Then there’s the photograph that accompanies the story — one without a caption. So I think it’s time to help out our friends at Dippynote and provide one.

Yes, if your read the post, you can pretty much figure out what this is.  But where’s the fun in that?

Related posts

• State Department Watch: The Bizarro Blog
• Dipnote Follies: Twitter TMI, Nukes, and Human Rights
• Compare and Contrast: Libya
• Wonk’d: The ALDAC “Controversy”
• Where Dipnote Could Actually Be Useful

Here’s what the State Department’s most recent human rights report has to say about Libya:

The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is an authoritarian regime with a population of approximately six million, ruled by Colonel Mu’ammar al‑Qadhafi since 1969. . . .Qadhafi and his inner circle monopolized political power. . . . The government’s human rights record remained poor. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. Reported torture, arbitrary arrest, and incommunicado detention remained problems. The government restricted civil liberties and freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association. The government did not fully protect the rights of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. Other problems included poor prison conditions; impunity for government officials; lengthy political detention; denial of fair public trial; infringement of privacy rights; restrictions of freedom of religion; corruption and lack of transparency; societal discrimination against women, ethnic minorities, and foreign workers; trafficking in persons; and restriction of labor rights.

Now here’s what our favorite government blog, Dippynote said after The Condi finished her Weekend at Moammar’s:

Libya’s journey to rejoin the community of nations came after a long process of reengagement. Its historic 2003 decisions to voluntarily rid itself of its WMD program and renounce terrorism created the foundation from which Libya has today become a leader in Africa and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. . . .Today, Libya is a vital partner in the fight against terrorism, helping to stem the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq. It works closely with its neighbors to combat the growth of terrorism in the Sahara and Trans-Sahel regions.

Libya is also a leader on the African continent. It maintains a humanitarian corridor that provides much needed supplies to the people of Darfur. Working with the African Union Contact Group, it is helping to mediate the conflicts in Chad and Sudan. Additionally, Libya provides development assistance to other African countries. . . .

The U.S. and Libya have shared interests, but have also differed at times on some key policy points and use of diplomatic tools. Naturally, we would prefer to have their support on some of these issues, but it is noteworthy that Libya — which serves as a model to others — voted in favor of placing additional sanctions against Iran for its non-compliance with international efforts to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.  Libya has come a long way in its transformation from an isolated pariah to renewed membership in the international community.

One of these things is not like the other.

By the way, this is the sixth consecutive Dippynote post on Libya.  That’s more than the total number of posts on Iraq (five) since the beginning of April — and equal to the number of posts on Afghanistan (six) since Dipnote began.  And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously?

Here’s the best part:  it’s very likely that the two statements above were written by the same person — Amanda Johnson, a Libya Desk Officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA).  Ms. Johnson is identified as the author of the Dippynote piece, and since there was no diplomatic presence in Tripoli at the time of the last human rights report, it probably would have fallen to Ms. Johnson to prepare the first draft of that report.

This is what drives me bananas about the State Department. I have no beef with Ms. Johnson, who in all likelihood is a fine foreign service officer.  But given her age (she says in the Dipnote piece that she was born in 1977), she is in all likelihood a fairly junior one.  And junior foreign service officers — those without tenure — might as well be party apparatchiks for all the influence they have on the policymaking process:  they either toe the party line or find themselves out of a job.

In Ms. Johnson’s case, that means writing something highly critical of Condi’s creepy stalker boyfriend wannabe, and then, eight months later, being told to write something highly complementary.  It’s no wonder that foreign service officers get cynical about political appointees — and about the U.S. government’s commitment to human rights.

So which one is right?  Let me offer you the following hint:  the happier the tone, the bigger the lie.

Related posts

• Dipnote Follies: Twitter TMI, Nukes, and Human Rights
• Ambassador for All War Crimes except Our Own
• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows
• Wonk’d: The ALDAC “Controversy”
• While You Were Away: Hot for Condi

I have found this blog’s Bizarro, its Spock with a beard:  the State Department’s blog.  Believe it or not, it’s called Dipnote.

Heh.

I couldn’t make that up if I tried.

Is Foggy Bottom completely lacking in irony?

The main problem with Dipnote is that it’s boring, boring, boring, boring.  Watching paint dry is more interesting boring.  Ferris Bueller’s teacher droning on and on is better boring.  PTA meeting is less torture boring.  Tax audit is more fun boring.

Sorry, thought I was in one of those Yoplait commercials there for a second.

Almost none of Dipnote’s features are interesting or revealing (except in the sense that it shows the degree to which the Department can grind the originality out of anything).  I’m guessing that the mandarins at State have put so many clearance filters on this thing, that almost nothing of any value can get through.

Earlier this week, as Russia was pounding Georgia and Dubya was ogling volleyball babes visiting Beijing, Dipnote led with. . .wait for it. . .a story entitled “Youth Questions Lead to Environmental Action.”

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.

That’s right:  to the State Department, having an Assistant Secretary talk to high schoolers is considered action on climate change.  Whoa.  What risk takers.

Those poor, poor kids.  They may never hear the words “State Department” again without screaming.

So what exactly does State think they’re accomplishing here?  The material is virtually unreadable.  Most of the posts appear to have been written by interns, fellows and junior public diplomacy officers (although, to be fair, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Sean McCormick has put his name on a few pieces).  About a third are merely a rehash of The Condi’s statements and op-eds. And almost all the comments come from about a dozen regulars, most of whom are Americans. And some of the commenters would be regarded as trolls on any other site.

It’s not really clear who their audience is, why they’re writing, or what they think they’re accomplishing.  I presume this must be a public diplomacy initiative, since it is still illegal for the U.S. Government to disseminate its “propaganda” domestically.  Yet they don’t seem to be reaching very many people (or at least they’re not showing up on Technorati or Google Analytics — something they might want to try to fix).

The posts are all over the place, displaying no common viewpoint or perspective, except maybe “look at this nice thing the State Department is doing.” That’s too bad, because I think there is potential value in the Department having a blog.  But it has to be more than this.

And I’m not sure they really understand the purpose of either blogging or social media.  On July 17, Editor-in-Chief, Heath Kern Gibson posted the following:

U.S. State Department and Social Media:  Tell Us What You Think

[snip]

Last year, along with the creation of the Department’s own YouTube Channel, this blog signified the Department’s foray into social media. Since then, the Department has created a Flickr photos profile, began microblogging using Twitter, distributed audio and video podcasts to iTunes and others using ten RSS feeds, and last week, launched the Department’s first official Facebook page. We encourage you to explore these products and let us know how we can better utilize them.

There have been many books and articles written on the relationship between traditional media and foreign policy, with the question often asked as to what degree the news media influences foreign policymakers and vice versa. What has not been discussed as much is the impact of social media on policymaking and the foreign affairs community.

It may not be quite clear yet as to what impact social media will have exactly on foreign policymaking. What is evident, though, is that foreign policy does not operate in a vacuum, and it must incorporate or respond to changes in communications. We are interested in your thoughts on how social media — how these changes in communication — will affect foreign policymaking in the years ahead.

Two words I never thought I’d see together:  diplomats tweeting.

Unfortunately, Gibson almost immediately got smacked down for even posing the question.  Five days later, Gibson’s boss, Assistant Secretary Sean McCormick responded:

Many of you raise an important question about the ability to influence large organizations, in this the case the State Department, through social media. Of course, there are a variety of ways this happens every day on sites not related to the government. We are different because of the relatively closed nature of the policy-making process (this applies across different administrations) so we acknowledge our limits up front. What that does not mean, however, is that you or we should accept those limits as immutable. One way in which I hope this blog evolves to involve you more is in bringing to our attention events (breaking or slowly unfolding). When we receive such information, it is my hope that we can internalize, analyze, and, when possible, act on the information. We are a ways from that model now, but over time culture changes. When I refer to culture in this case, I mean the State Department. It is an inherently conservative (and by that I mean slow to accept and implement change) culture. In less than a year, though, I see change with more posters coming forward to us with material they want to share with you.

I will work with you on the flip side of the equation, in which your feedback or suggestions make their way in to our decision-making processes. I’m reading a great book now, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies . While the book is directed at use of social technologies in business, I can see some parallels on which we can draw, especially in modifying internal processes.

In other words, don’t get your hopes up — nothing in this building is going to change anytime soon.  And if you want it to change, it’s your responsibility to push us to change, because we won’t do it on our own.

That does not bode well for either the future of this blog or the ability of the Department to respond to evolving technology.  Good luck, Mr. Gibson.  You’re going to need it.

Photos:  Wikipedia, via a GNU Free Documentation License

Related posts

• State Department: Not Even a PC, Much Less a Mac
• Jesse Helms
• Dipnote Follies: Twitter TMI, Nukes, and Human Rights
• Where Dipnote Could Actually Be Useful
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight