Home
Videos
Photos
Welcome
About
Legal
Search
Archive

Share This Post

Recent Posts

Young Europeans React to Secretary Clinton’s Visit

What Actions Should the International Community Take To Resolve the Situation in Darfur?

Spring Break: Have Fun, Stay Safe

Secretary Clinton Responds to Your Text Messages

Secretary’s 2009 International Women of Courage Awards

View all Feeds

More information on Social Networks

Subscribe to Dipnote by Email

Follow Dipnote on Twitter

Dipnote on YouTube

Dipnote on Facebook

U.S. Department of State and Social Media: Tell Us What You Think
Posted by Heath Kern Gibson on Jul 17, 2008 - 03:41 PM

The State Department and Social Media [State Department image]

About the Author: Heath Kern Gibson is the Editor-in-Chief of DipNote.

Secretary Rice has called the Internet "…possibly one of the greatest tools for democratization and individual freedom that we've ever seen." We are seeing this when people blog from Cuba and Iran and other societies in which restrictions are placed upon their personal freedoms.

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.

Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS

Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments

Jerry writes:

My view is that there are far more smarter people not serving in public service and to be able to give these people a medium to voice their opinions will enrich our policy makers if they can adapt to be able to listen through all the noise that also comes with an open forum.

Posted on Mon Jan 12, 2009

Prashanth in Virginia writes:

The present onslaught of Recession has taken all the pundits of the present Administration by surprise-'Caught with their pants down'

Is this what President Bush had in mind the Greatest Gift to and mantle to be handed over to the Obama Admn?

Would the State dept handle things a bit more on-ground status rather than a hands off approach. Terrorism is one thing i am speaking about!

However, I still would congratulate for handling the thorn in the seat- 'her post'well and she could have been noted a bit more positively in the history of the US Admn and the Greatest Failures.

Best of Luck Madam

Posted on Thu Dec 25, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

15 August 08

Quote of the day!

"All Nations under God should work together finding Peaceful Solutions by putting their political agendas aside and communicating with a warm heart. Peace is reachable! God Blesses those people who promote Peace around the world. (peacemakers) I will pray for the country of Iran because being a visionary the future looks very meek for that country. I hope and pray the Leaders of Iran will seek the Lord and stop the foolishness of boasting its power, when it is written a man who boasts power ends up with nothing in the end! A true miracle is when the Iran Leader will see the light and come to his senses and realize his enemy becomes himself in face of his people! A man is not measured by his foolishness, he is measured by God with the lives he saves! It is also written God Blesses people who save lives not destroy lives!

May all Nations, all Prime Ministers, all Leaders in Power even Kings in charge of Kingdoms of people find Peace, Happiness, Love, and Prosperity!

Peace Be UPON the world! We all can share in Peace and promote good standings, Good Will to Mankind and resist in temptation to mock other countries because we might not agree with what they do. We all can agree living in the light is better than dwelling with the dead!"

A-men! & Godbless all Nations!!!

Posted on Fri Aug 15, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Wiseman in Syria -- Wiseman, you didn't offend me.

I generally don't offer an idea unless it is do-able, and if you were to visit the largest open pit copper mine in the world in Arizona and saw the size of the Tonka Toys they use to litteraly move a mountain (wheels on dump trucks 22 ft in diameter) , then you would truly appreciate the source of my inspiration in regards to buldozing the Golan hights into the Mediteranian sea for the puposes outlined.

It is totally do-able in five years if the political will exists, and the mindset involved is creative enough to concieve the results.

As for the U.S. forcing Assad to release political prisoners, I would suggest that if Assad were to twitch the wrong way that an early retirement might be arranged a-la Saddam.

But short of him acting with terminal stupidity, political change in Syria should be home grown.

Which means you'll have to deal with mindsets like SNP's before any real positive change will occur.

But I'm sure open to hearing your ideas.

I've gotten beyond having much emotional attachment to the things you asked about. It's not a point of ego with me. If folks run with an idea, it's pretty much out of my hands. If they don't, then it probably didn't matter in the first place whether I had suggested it or not. So there's no grey hair to pull out.

If it gives "the powers that be" something to think about, then I've done my job as part of humanity.

---
"And I think my realistic approach to the problem gives you the passion of being part of the solution."
---

Pardon me for bursting your bubble, but my "passion" to be part of the solution is derived in part from the fact that my granddad was one of the principal individuals involved in the building of the very first atomic bomb.

He worked for peace, and so do I.

An idea world? That's a reality still to be created by better ideas than I can come up with at the moment.

So please by all means, you are welcome to take your best shot.

Posted on Thu Aug 14, 2008

Wiseman in Syria writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- Please do not feel offended it's not my aim.

I can understand the disappointment and frustration in your mind when you wrote your comment.

Trust me if you were in my place (I don't wish you that), you would lose that precious gray hair at the peak of your body.

I have only one advice for you…

Never show your muscles to a Wiseman.

I’d also suggest you read King Nimrod story because all the glory he has never teach him basic lesson (ships always sink from the bottom) so he fall from his top.

I am wise enough to use the (spinning zone) at SNP and Susan relentless argument of blame not your department.

Actually I find your idea great and even practical.

And I think my realistic approach to the problem gives you the passion of being part of the solution.

From your mouth "I'd agree that the folks that work the land are the ones at the core of the struggle for it. Water rights, etc."

Also from your mouth "See the way it would work in an ideal world"

Mentioning ideal world…

Have you ever get disappointed deliberately misunderstood all the time and mistreated by the people you thought they know you better?

Have you ever felt the pain of people won’t allow your better ideas because they thought it threaten them?

Have you ever felt the pain of having the cure and unable deliver it?

Have you ever been forced to cheer for your robbery and humiliation?

Have you ever faced a situation of being able to help people on both sides and rejected by both of them?

Have you ever been under situation where better ideas are not enough?

Have you ever tried to implement your better ideas?

Have your better ideas ever being limited by the will of your surrounding not your mind.

Eric, if you think we live in ideal world then there is no use from Wiseman.

Since you ask me for a better idea and my level of knowledge do not cover Near East , Pacific , Southern Hemisphere , mid-Asia

Here is a better idea for the diplomacy that is capable of moving mountains:

The U.S. ADMINISTRATION along with its western allies capable to force Assad regime to release all political prisoners allow political freedom , freedom of speech , freedom of press , election freedom without limitations or harassment end the torture cells and unlawful detention or else the regime will be held accountable for his unacceptable actions.

Those essential steps would prepare the soil for great ideas such yours be more realistic and the Middle East more ideal.

The best way chariot can move is when you put the horse in the front.

And it can never move with rider on dead horse.

If you think we have common ground then you are welcome to my sack of better ideas.

By the way am not SNP.

Posted on Thu Aug 14, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Wiseman in Syria, you got a better idea? If not, then I would suggest that any diplomacy capable of moving mountains is not based on "spin". Just on a different viewpoint than your's.....(chuckle).

Posted on Wed Aug 13, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

12 August 08

I hope Russian and Georgia can cease fire!

I also wanted to clarify my apology with Japan. First, I would never apologize to Defend the Constitution of America to protect our Homeland. I would apologize for the method that was used against Japan back in 1945 which we all know was Nuclear Weapons. I believe wars should be kept to conventional weapons. I just hope everyone will remember that the earth can only handle so many of these before it cracks and then we will no longer have an earth!

The United States declared war against Iraq because of the threat against Weapons of Mass Destruction which is Nuclear Weapons. How ironic in some way, We used them back in 1945 and in 2003 we went to war with Iraq because we believed they had them.

The wonderful thought that keeps coming to my head is, What a day it will be when all countries no longer have the ability to make a nuclear device and use it on another country. Why can't world leaders just sit down, drink a cold brew and work out their problems without leading to wars! Example: Isreal and Palastine why not just sit down eat some food and drink wine and find Peace!

May God Bless (End Wars find Peace light a torch and smile) Good Day!

Posted on Tue Aug 12, 2008

Wiseman in Syria writes:

@Susan in Florida & Eric in New Mexico

i would be more thankful if my little contribution get you out of the spinning zone

Posted on Sat Aug 09, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Wiseman in Syria, Thank you for your kind reply of 8-7-08. As an American, I love my country, as I am sure you love yours. Loving one's country does not always mean agreeing with its policies. As a whole, we Americans are a generous and thoughtful people. We have always been proud of our heritage of freedom and diversity, and proud of our desire to help others around the world. My hope for America is that we will return to our ideals of freedom, honesty and justice. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.

Posted on Fri Aug 08, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

8th August 08

I would like to share this view today!

We in the United States told North Korea they cannot have Nuclear Power or Nuclear Weapons! I totally agree!

We also told the country of Iran to remove it's Nuclear Program! I totally agree!

However how long before one day a country tells United States it has to remove its Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Missiles?

I guess the bigger point to all this is, "Why can't all countries see the light and realize that Nuclear Power is more a threat and has more devistation if used... When I think of everything on earth that is a natural resource for energy, OIL, Coal, Natual Gas, Fossil Fuels, BIO-Fuels, and the list goes on.

People might disagree with me on this point. I can accept that because I'm merely expressing my point of view. That we are above Nuclear Power or Nuclear weapons. We should be smarter than this and use our intelligence to come up with energy that will help people not destroy them! I honestly think that is what God had in mind for us!

Posted on Fri Aug 08, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Wiseman in Syria, I'd agree that the folks that work the land are the ones at the core of the struggle for it. Water rights, etc.

The only long term solution is to create more arible land for people to work, rather than fighting over what little they feel they have.

Here's an idea.....Let's just Bulldoze the Golan heights into the Med. , import a bit of top soil and organic mulch, creating some decent cropland in about five years time and solve a sticky strategic issue at the same time. No Golan hights, no problem.

See the way it would work in an ideal world (which would involve improbable changes of mindset in this one) , would be for the terra-forming project to be a joint bilateral Syrian/Isreali effort to create new land to help solve the Palestinian refugee issue.

If problems are going to get solved at all, all ideologies aside, folks are going to have to start getting a little more creative in their thinking, and less destructive in fear based rhetoric.

Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008

Wiseman in Syria writes:

@ Susan in Florida -- What happened in yad vashem was so ugly and should never repeat again only mentally sick person would find it acceptable or think it was justified

you don't have to worry about SSNP (SYRIAN SOCIAL NATIONALIST PARTY) thoughts he is an ideologist (has bad impression of the U.S. ADMINISTRATION by nature )

even though US support to (Husni Alzaem) coup lead to eliminating their ideology founder (Antun Saadeh) by handing him to his lebanese neighbor for execution

they can make a deal with the U.S. ADMINISTRATION how they did with the current baathist regime regardless of their bad history with baathist who kick them out of Syria after one pro SSNP assassinated one of their elitist bathist figures in football match they finally accept to be in the shadow of baath endless monopoly

thinking that the SYRIAN individuals are so naive or ignorant how you understood from his words towards USA AND ISRAEL nevertheless they do have more credibility among the Syrians than the baathist regime do

speaking about the regime international isolation

actually i don't know who was isolated Simple Syrian Farmer or Bashar Assad who fly from London to Madrid to Moscow to Paris to Tehran if that your definition of isolation then I better join regime staff tomorrow so I can get some of that isolation

or how it could be in the interest of ISRAEL isolating SYRIAN INDIVIDUALS when the regime itself find a very great interest for his survival in sealing the country and isolate it's citizens so he can do whatever he likes away from international censorship (saydnaya political prison accident)

what is worst I don't think any government fail to make peace with it's own people is able to make peace with anyone

the bottom line is THE ONLY PEACE US AND ISRAEL CAN COUNT ON IS THE PEACE BETWEEN SYRIAN FARMER AND ISRAELI FARMER (not Bashar Assad nor pro lebanese media neither pro jordanian clerks)

I apologize if I sound sarcastic in my previous post but i guess now you understand my reason for laughing

Posted on Thu Aug 07, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Wiseman in Syria --

I appreciate your lesson on Syrian history as I am not as knowledgeable on the topic as you would be. I also appreciate your more moderate voice about the situation in the Middle East. However, my comments were directed at SNP in Syria in response to his endless blaming of all the problems/situations in that area on the "evil jews" as that is very reminiscent of Hitler's excuse for wanting to eliminate all the Jews in Europe, and I am sure, if Germany had won World War II, all the Jews around the world. I, for one, believe in the motto, for the Jews, "Never again."

Here is a thought provoking interview on the subject:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20080717

Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

5 August 08

@John in Greece

I remember how the United States was attacked in Pearl Harbor, December 7th 1941. We lost many of our troops that day as well. The USS Arizona is a reminder of what happened that morning to the United States. Very Courageous Sailors and Marines at Pearl Harbor. I was blessed to have met a Sailor who was there at the time of the attack.

My own personal feeling is that the common root of countries have the ability to fire a nuclear weapon and destroy hundreds, thousands if not millions of people at will, and we on earth don't say a word. We sit back and wait. We all should support an International Bill that bans Nuclear Power, Bans Nuclear Weapons. Then no country around the globe should have them. If they try to get them or store them or do something with them, they should be dealt in a higher court.

The Nuclear Arms race - to me seems like more trouble than what its worth. Their will only be more problems, more casualties, more things that happen because of this. When does it all end? When do we use our Brains and come up with something better, smarter and gets the job done without Nuclear Power!

Posted on Tue Aug 05, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Donald

I think we should "allow" God to stay out of all these! (I write this with all the respect for God -- human decisions or faults have not God's clearance. They are just human choices, often egoistic. Otherwise we will start blaming God too, and this is blasphemy).

And now, back to real life. I will comment just on two of your very interesting questions.

You write:
"Iran - In my own opinion how did they get this power to begin with? Who sold Iran this technology? Who is behind giving Iran the ability to make a nuclear power plant?"

RUSSIA and FRANCE is the answer Donald, along with the financial and "ideological" support from some religious fanatics that want to play the role of the "local" (Earth) God: the sheikhs and the ex-Soviet/France emporium that sell or buy everything money can get or sell.

I wonder why you ask this. Everybody knows their sources for acquiring tech and materials? The worst is what initially inspires their "vision" for doing so. Please think of this, however you will once again have to face "Gods" and money at the end of the perception!

You write:
"We should all make peace and say to the Japanese People, "We apologize for what happened. Your losses on that one day no doubt were great."

I will be simple concerning this:

1. Do you remember? (I mean historically) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

2. U.S.A. saved the World -- all the Globe -- by using that weapon -- even if we cannot easily "accept" the human losses, concerning the psychological and humanistic stops our conscience has to deal with when we think of the decision, today. But, this was the only way that could save FREEDOM and HUMAN DIGNITY on the planet, back then.

Otherwise, today, Hitler would be our "God"?

It's better to "trust your own"!

Posted on Tue Aug 05, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

4 August 08

I would like to share a few more comments with everyone. It seems to me that the common threat to the world always appears to be nuclear weapons. Having nuclear power plants and possibly endangering the lives of who lives around these plants. The light bulb should switch on that maybe Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy problems. Russians faced a melt down in their country which effected many people. At that time the russians didn't tell anyone what had happened, and in Scotland they had sheep that were falling out. Milk started going bad. If I recall it took them a week before they decided to share it with the world what happened. We in the United States had the 3 mile island incident. Yet all the experts want to keep making nuclear power. If by making nuclear power leads to making nuclear weapons then maybe the choice should be simple. We need a future energy resource to handle the demands of power for all people that will not endanger lives and possibly even help the planet.

We have some of the best engineers in the world, the best scientist that money can buy and this is all they can come up with, repeating history in colleges. Which apparently lead to more problems. Good example: Iran

Iran - In my own opinion how did they get this power to begin with? Who sold Iran this technology? Who is behind giving Iran the ability to make a nuclear power plant?

I think in the global war against terrorism that if all countries were to consider reducing all Nuclear Powered Facilities world wide maybe we all can get along without the fear of a nuclear attack. When the major countries get together and talk about reducing nuclear arms, hint maybe that is a wise idea considering that if something did happen, who wins? Nobody wins in a nuclear attack, many people would perish.

Every country and world wants to be a super power by having nuclear power and nuclear weapons so they can be a threat to other countries. My question would be where does it say in the bible that building a nuclear power plant is right or just? When it has more damaging potential to destroy human life!

"I just wonder how God would truly feel about Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Weapons knowing what they can do to people and the earth he created for us. If we destroy our land our people, what is left for our kids? Yet we continue to make Nuclear carriers, Nuclear subs." We repeat history all over again. I believe we should all appreciate what God has given us and be Thankful for all the blessings on earth. Countries around the world should have conventional weapons to protect their countries, no question. We all remember what happened with Japan back in 1945. I was not born at that time but I can only imagine how devistating it was for the Japanese people. I believe we all should remember the lost lives during those attacks. We should all make peace and say to the Japanese People, "We apologize for what happened. Your losses on that one day no doubt were great."

This note: The Veterans who served in world war 2 will always be credited with valor.

When I think of the big mushroom cloud, I can only think how country Leaders have given up on the basic common law of thinking and using common sense and saving human life. Why do we live in an time where people want to destroy life? We all should have peace in hearts and use many forms of communication to get our points across.

This is only my own personal opinion and that maybe one day God will fill us on in on what is right and Just. Maybe the future energy question could be raised to God. I hope everyone will start listening to the right voice in life maybe we all can share the common goal of peace, raising families, building those bridges to other countries without the fear of nuclear weapons. Without the fear of nuclear devistation! Being blacked out!

I can only hope and pray people will read this message around the world and consider my humble view on nuclear power.

Posted on Mon Aug 04, 2008

Wiseman in Syria writes:

I think the best of State Department involvement in social networking was its ability for the first time to hear voices never heard before due to some Lebanese and Jordanians' passion of possession which lead the situation to the worst scenario today.

@ Susan in Florida -- "You think Americans are ignorant?!! Take a good look at home first. "

Do you think we are???

If you do then you are.

To the best of my knowledge, Syria was the first democracy in the whole middle east 2 years earlier before the state of Israel was born, Syrian American political & economical relation was at its best that times but for known reasons U.S.A. destabilized Syria by supporting first military coup in Syria (Husni Alzaem) and when the Syrians regain their lost democracy in 1961 after a series of coups which did not fit with the Israelis who made a deal with the butcher of Syria (Hafez al Assad) to control Syria Illegally and eliminate all the elements of democracy including his own party opponents in reward he keep the Golan front calm and the economy weak.

Don’t worry, we will not ask your country military or financial support or exaggerate our value like other helpless countries.

We know we had a puppet in Damascus but we won’t replace it with another puppet from Washington (farid alghadri) if you really want to help us here is what we want (no more puppets).

Actually I cannot prevent myself from laughing (and I guess the Israelis too) at the (trap) Israeli officials and Assad regime got themselves into Assad regime cannot dig his grave with his own hands by making peace with Israel (40 years of worthless lies and billions of money squandered) at the same time Israelis officials cannot gamble peace with their own puppet regime by doing that they will send it to its early retirement.

I guess the U.S. ADMINISTRATION done well this time by not allowing the Israelis to embarrass them more involving in this show.

This explain why the Israelis insist on confusing the U.S. administration by asking it to let the regime in Syria and left the international isolation more over having a peace talks for the first time without the U.S. cover.

Actually I enjoyed the Paris puppets show too much.

Folk’s solution is so pure and simple don't you see it (Bashar looks similar to Bashir) isn’t it?

@ SNP in Syria -- "Syria and Lebanon will become the center of economic and cultural power of the Middle East and the destination for the world businessmen, global financial institutions and travelers.”

I don't think the majority of Syrians believe in your theory for simple reason.
The Lebanese consider themselves as phoenix descendant while they consider us the Syrians as Roman Empires leftover.

Unless you are SSNP member (Levant dreamer) then the first thing you have to do if you are Lebanese is to plant a cedar tree in Lebanon mountain to prevent the pro Lebanese from kicking you out of Lebanon.

As Syrian I don't find any interest for us the Syrian to have any kind of unity with Lebanon who will benefited of it more than we will at least in this century maybe next century.

Posted on Sat Aug 02, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Donald in Virginia

I really like what you write; believe in God too, and I wish that all these could become reality someday. However, many problems on earth begin and continue with this faith of populations in different "Gods", even between people that believe in the same God, but with different perspectives or egoistic aims -- an example is Shi'a and Sunni. There are many others too.

Mark Twain has described this "human religious conflict" in the best way. I will attempt to give you the meaning of his words, using my words, because I do not have in my hands the English prototype.

"We have transformed the planet into a huge cemetery, because many people believe that they have discovered the one and only God. Then, they feel the need to prepare the ground for paradise for the rest of the people on earth.".

That's why I personally think that the classical American declaration "In God we trust" -- generally and without any scope for proselytism -- is so pure, sophisticated and honest.

(If anyone has the original Twain's text please contribute)

Posted on Wed Jul 30, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Eric of New Mexico tells us "Total regime change is the only permanent solution. Thus when I hear talk of some kind of limited strike on Iran's nuclear program, I realize some analysts and politicians still have a fundemental lesson to learn about effectively dealing with extremism."

The choice all nations face today is whether we shall demand to keep our culture, our nation, and our sovereignty, or whether we will do nothing and thereby fail to resist the utopian agenda to merge nations into a "global community" under a world government in which democracy is just a buzz word -- a label attached to a new system of state feudalism or a "New World Order".

The unique middle eastern culture is unassimilated and incompatible with the globalist agenda and you can draw your own conclusions about what will be done about it.

An invasion of Iran is certain to occur eventually. It may be only a matter of timing but America will be further economically devastated in the aftermath. Wars destroy more than the enemy -- they also destroy the public finance of the winner -- and this is why the Roman Empire levied heavy taxes upon conquered nations; Rome could not afford wars and occupation without a global tax.

It is also apparent that there is a government blackout as to what is happening on the international level and how it affects our sovereignty and Constitution. International meetings occur at an ever-increasing rate between governments and the public is often told very little about what agreements were reached and why.

The battle today is not Republican vs. Democrat or Left vs. Right, but Nationalist vs. Globalist. One necessarily must choose sides and global government is clearly the wrong side. The internet provides the evidence for all to see. The ability of governments to lie to their people is coming to an end. Our government officials had better get accustomed to telling the truth the first time without waiting to be called on the lie. The internet records all lies and they continue to haunt governments that disregard the truth. This should drastically change the way that the federal government does business if it wishes to retain any credibility.

Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

28 July 08

What is the International symbol for peace?

An olive branch

All great Nations on earth need to find peace in their hearts! Do we all agree on everything in life? Impossible

"We will never agree that one style, one religon, one sex, one race, or one power will control or dominate the world? what we can agree is that God is the creator, the Alpha and the Omega, which is the begining and the end."

We can agree to disagree on issues. We can agree that peace on earth should be a top prioity for people who want to live without fear, live with a Government that stands by you and not against you. We all should work together and pray in our own languages, in our own faith, for Peace, love and happiness around the world, celebrations marking Peace, ending wars, making new friends, shaking hands with strangers you never met before, When is the last time you just gave someone a hug. Sharing ideas, faith, and beliefs to enrich our lives. Stay in a positive light and blessings grow. Stay in darkness and nothing grows.

In war it's like darkness because many unknowns exist. We all should find a light to represent the good in people.

I believe all countries around the world should light a Torch and display a freedom flag along with the Peace Symbol (An olive branch) to represent they want to live in peace. Finding that one part in their lives that is missing, to love thy neighbor which is quoted from the bible. "We are all neighbors to one another on earth." We are all brothers and sisters under God. Maybe its time we all acted like good neighbors, good custodians of Peace and light the Torch so everyone in the world knows you have found eternal Peace and Happiness!

May God Bless and in hope we all can share the vision of Peace, prosperty, love and Happiness on earth!

Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Correction to post:

Links are on topic thread-

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/policy_toward_iran

For those wondering what links I was talking about.

Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Kirk, we are talking exceptions to the rule in the case of Iran/contra.

I think if you have read the documents in the links below, you got a sense of the context and a good look inside US policy making, and what I get from it is that there is a lot of consistancy through the years in general respect to cold war policies throughout decades of dysfunctional international relations during the cold war, and the methodologies used to combat Soviet influence globally.

I don't downplay the mistakes made in foreign policy, I just accept the fact that the US gov. has learned from them, and has gone beyond them to arrive at better policies that work for both us and the rest of the world...with the exception of those we are at war with today...who are hating it immensely, being on the losing end of US foreign policy.

When you consider Iraq and Afghanistan....the leaving of Saddam in power in 91.....and the failure to help stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan to come full circle, after the Soviets were driven out...

It's quite obvious in both cases that not only have we had to go back a decade or so later to get the job done right, but in doing so America has taken concrete steps to correct past mistakes of foreign policy.

None of this happened in a vacume, nor was the foreign policy of other nations in any way perfect or even admirable. The Oil for food scandle being just one such example.

One thing we have learned for sure is that hostile intent cannot be changed with a few cruise missiles, as were sent as a message to both Saddam and bin Laden by Pes. Clinton in '98. Total regime change is the only permanent solution. Thus when I hear talk of some kind of limited strike on Iran's nuclear program, I realize some analysts and politicians still have a fundemental lesson to learn about effectively dealing with extremism.

This is not in the past Kirk, and whether I'm right in my estimation of the current Iranian government's intent or not, I am constantly amazed at how consistantly the Iranian gov. supplies the words to prove my case that they wish to have a military confrontation with us.

It is almost Persian tradition to pose as the victim in international affairs. But that is far from the case in actuality.

Posted on Sun Jul 27, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

27 July 08

I believe that the United Nations could be doing more to help those in Africa. Sending food will not be the cure for what those people need. They could use farm equipment, seed, fertilizer, plus the ability to water the crops. First step should be with education to farm in schools. Continue sending them food and you will never get ahead. Giving them some food to survive sure. However, it should be a complex forthcomings of giving them what they need. If you give money to the wrong person in life they might not spend it the way you think they will.

How many people in Sudan alone have perished because of lack of food, lack of training, lack of security, or the fact that they do not have oil? The world takes a blind eye to those poor people.

I also think that with the right equipment, the right management and training if you did send them and made those African countries rich with planting, farming, they would be blessed and would allow them to build more homes, more hospitals, and have a better education for its people.

The problem in the world is too many people who receive big donations don't always do right by them. Then the people end up with nothing. The world is in a food crisis. We all have to get smarter and be positive about the future. Even in the bible it mentions about plagues, food shortages, but even with God when the people of Israel made it to the promise land still was fed with Mania. Which means there is always hope for people who go hungry, if they Prayed and God hears the prayer!

Posted on Sun Jul 27, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

You have a good point. To be honest, I was speaking rather rhetorically, but, I will say that while the nation as a whole stays pretty close to the intent of our Constitution, especially because of the number of people who shape policy, in and out of the government, who have studied the articles and insist we adhere to them, there are still those who, while attempting to follow national interests, break those laws. I'm thinking of Reagan's Iran-Contra affair in this case, but there are others. Was he following the aims of our national interest? Yes. But he did it in a decidedly shady manner.

As for Zharkov's pessimistic view of the morality of our foreign policy, I think that once a person has opinion set about such things, they only see the facts that fit the premise and tend to down play the ones that contradict it. We all do the same thing, but realizing the extent of which we do it helps to counter the effects. To lean too far one way, that the government is eternally in the right, or the other, that it is always wrong, are both dangerous tenets. We have to hold in the sphere all the facts that both demonstrate the good will of our nation and always enumerate the ones that point to less than ethical behavior.

I think the advent of new communication technologies like this blog here, and instant inter/intra-national interaction, will enable us to do both in real time.

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov

Your "Against the Blog Oriented Conspiracy" hit is childish and (according to my opinion) anti-patriotic, although you introduce yourself as "too American" (2).

(Let's call it -- such hits -- 2ABOC from now on).

I would prefer you to use the word "American TOO (2)!!!", if you believe so much in the States, but, anyway, this is your right to use your own words and to express your views.

If you were in Burma, China, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Iran etc. and you wrote -- although they have no democratic forums there -- that the official Blog of the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs treats my "thoughts" unfair, you would be??

Here, in U.S.A., you write that: THEY DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO POST "SOME THINGS", BUT, as we see, it's obvious that they treat you right- THE "GUYS of the BLOG" ALLOW YOU TO SAY -- and they DO post your comment -- THAT "THEY DID NOT ALLOW YOU" TO POST SOME THINGS???.

(I hope my English make sense)

Z (s)trange argument -- Z, especially if you count your posts!

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Kirk,

Interesting analogy, but I have to disagree that when circumstance arise compelling national interest priorities overrule Constitutional law.

The Constitution is an adaptive document just as species of animals adapt to survive....thus the many ammendments therein.

In actuality, our national interests have remained very consistant with the values premised by our laws.

The misconception that US foreign policy is somehow amoral in conception is my basic problem with Zharkov's continuous misinterpretations of US intent.

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

Anna in Washington, DC writes:

How is social media going to change foreign policymaking?

Events will be filtered through a medium more immediate than even the 24 hour cable television news cycle. Diplomats may be called upon to provide information in actual real time. The public won't have to wait for reporters to write stories...on a side note, journalists' stories might contain more analysis and context than real reporting, a trend we're already seeing in the news magazines...because the public will be able to access information directly, immediately. Diplomats will be able to blog or twitter moments after a meeting or summit. But will that happen? I think the UK Foreign Minister's blog is an example of what we'll be seeing more of in the future.

I'm also curious as to whether this will create burdens on diplomats representing democractic countries. Will their publics come to expect such immediate information, information that their counterparts from non-democratic nations will not be expected to provide? Will this shape the outcome of sensitive negotiations? Or, will it create a greater burden on those diplomats representing non-democratic countries? Will their peoples, through access to the Internet and other sources, come to expect them to be as transparent as those diplomats representing democracies? I think, eventually, the greater burden will be on those governments' diplomats who do not provide information to their publics, and the Internet will indeed prove to be a force for democratization.

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

@ Zharkov in USA

On reflection, another thought. Your protests involve the question of appropriateness and how they affect our long term interests.

To draw a parallel: the government is an animal. The people are cells, over the years they live and die but the beast remains.

Like all animals, the gov. has a list of interests, ours are National Interests, ranked in priority. Close to the very top is its survivability. Somewhere close to the top is its purpose for being, enacting the will of the people. To assume that protection of domestic sectors is the highest priority is a mistake. The highest priorities is the maneuvering of the country into an advantageous position and the accumulation of power. The interests of the gov. transcends the interest of the people it governs. Like how an animal will chew its leg off to escape a trap, the gov. will injure, purposefully or through neglect, interests at home if it is advantageous to a greater interest abroad. If you've ever spent your rent money on something else you needed, with the hopes of making it up a little later, you know the actions of the government. So maybe they feel that winning the war in Iraq is more important that focusing on our infrastructure. Maybe the disruptions to our economy and the incursion of debt is worth placing America in a more advantageous position. Maybe they're right, maybe not.

The constitution is a fine document. The ideas it proclaims are an excellent model to live by. Based on Greek and Roman systems, incubated in the Magna Carta, and refined in the Enlightenment, this version is one of the most advanced accomplishments of human endeavor, it encapsulates what is good and right in mankind and attempts to check the most villainous. I like it so much, I would even put myself in harm's way to protect it. That said, it's also just a piece of paper. And paper hand-cuffs will never stay a hand intent on doing what animals do. If the interest of the Nation rises in priority over the need to adhere to the constitutionality of our law, if following the constitution hinders the pursuit of the National Interests, it will disregard those laws in the most expedient way possible. Often there prevailing norms that feel that following those laws are more important than other interests, and people try and often succeed reigning in more ambitious elements. Why do you think there are so many watch-dog agencies? They know the proclivities of a powerful government. But they do not always prevail. Faced with a high National Interest, an administration will enter into nefarious pacts with other nations, cook the books, lie to the people, commit crimes, violate human rights, and aggressively push propaganda. I can't expect the Dipnote bloggers to agree with that, and if I proclaimed my theory insistently or loudly enough, I would expect them to refute it, but, as history shows us, and as you yourself have amassed an array of evidence, these things do happen. This is the nature of the beast, and of all governments. This isn't news. That doesn't mean we should just let it be, if we find injustice in our system it is incumbent on us to do our duty to our country by insisting, by force if necessary, that our leaders adhere to our laws. But to affect a tone of indigent outrageousness is to lend to a person a certain naivete. We should face the situation with a certain calm and cool demeanor. We must work quietly and swiftly to implement our aims, but avoid proclaiming in a shrill tones the injustices wrought upon us by a zealous government, they will find a way to ignore us. This isn't direct to you, as your arguments are put forward methodically, but a statement in general.

Here is something that may lighten your day: the priority of National Interests shift in relation to the current administration. Soon a new set of priorities will be put into focus. If we want the government to honor the law of the constitution, we need to champion for representatives and presidents who values this more desirable than strategic global advantage. Though it loathes me to mention it, perhaps sometimes assuring our survivability through international wrangling is more important. Another thing that eases some of my concerns, some of the same that you have, is that the government is not a single entity but comprised of many different people with many different opinions, some who agree with you and are working to bring these issues to bear.

In closing, I will say this, I understand you're deeply concerned. I support your efforts to bring attention to these issues (whether the State Dept. blog is the most effective venue for that, I don't know). I think also, though, that a little patience, for now, will probably gain you satisfaction in the very near future when things begin to change.

"The greatest and most violent conflicts are not caused by Good VS Evil but by parties who all think they are doing good and have different ways of doing it."

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

@ Zharkov in USA

I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a keen grasp of the issues at hand, a crisp, succinct writing style, and an almost encyclopedic knowledge of events, but most of your post seem to have the sense of incredulousness at the government's continued pursuit of power. In that sense, we are in the same boat. As an idealist who prefers non-aggression and compromise, I'm often at odds with the actions of our government, but, as a realist who sees life as competition, I ask you this: Has it ever been any other way? Since the beginning of our time tribes were in competition with others in the next valley over, to today, where vast empires maneuver for advantage on the global stage, does the active efforts of nations to compete and dominate still surprise you? Even babies in the womb compete with their mother for resources.

Power in the physical sense, the capacity to get things done.

In the national sense, it is the ability to make others bend to your will.

How can we do that unless we are right on their door step, sometimes sitting in their kitchens? Thus the need for bases all over the world.

The US will never stop trying to acquire more power and advantage, indeed, it cannot. As a nation is the embodiment of the people, human nature dictates a never ending drive to compete, to actualize potential, and to monopolize resources, as so espoused by Nietzsche's Will to Power and others. The methods of how we proceed is up for debate, that we should do so: never.

As a bit of a romantic, I've tried to enshrine in my heart the virtues of nobility, honor, gentleman-ship, and compassion. So I don't like aggressive power grabs and am content to live in peace without desire to interfere in others lives. I've always hoped that others were trying to do the same, but in reality, that is not the case. To opt out of the game is only folly. As Machiavelli wrote:

"Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good."

Some people balk at calling it a game, as it suggestion frivolity, but I will not hesitate to do so for I can think of no other analogy that so completely describes the various arrangements of players against one another. It just happens to be a very serious game where the stakes are dire, paid in blood and livelihoods.

As I've come to study the actions of our government, as you do so well, I've realized that there is never a moment where the US is not trying to ply its leverage, gain more of it, and discharge its power. All the diplo-speak is just another form of maneuvering, the casting of a smoke screen, to assuage the concerns of nations who share our values, and a clever misdirection against those who don't.

I think it's best, to avoid the continual resentment that corrodes the soul when faced with the difference between what we think should be and what will remain as is, to accept this facet of our government. To wish otherwise, for a non-interventionist path, is fine ideal, but you might as well wish for the stars to move from their positions in the sky, or for men to not do what they've been doing for thousands of years.

I do find some consolation when forced to face this fact, and I hope that you may find it in these sentiments, as well. As a nation is an embodiment of the people, a collected expression of will, we have the opportunity to make Respect and Compassion national values, and to marshal this nations auxiliary power to bring through a peaceful hand, happiness and prosperity for not only ourselves, but to all.

Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Imperialism -- noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Zharkov asks:

"How can a government that maintains more than 800 military facilities in more than 140 different foreign countries be anything other than an imperial power?"

Because 140 soverign nations have agreed to host those facilities and personel as guests. Invited guests.

I've lost track of how many people have told you this on many topic threads on this blog, and part of getting yourself listened to is being able to listen to others and have a discussion based on reality. Not just putting out position papers.

Which reminds me...thanks! You have just provided example for how relevent Ms. Rice's quote actually is.

When an Ambassador tells me "You've got everyone thinking about this." on a topic thread he started on Dipnote some time ago, then I think it's gone a wee bit beyond "listening".

Common sense that cannot be rationally ingnored....at your service.

Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece, our government loves you - your posts will never be rejected by the DoS, unlike some of mine which apparently DoS found them perhaps too "American" to publish.

But let's face the truth, John - our political class feels insecure without military bases in each country around the world.

For reasons known only to them, our government cannot leave other people alone.

Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov

America has the right to be able to defend America. To put up a defense?

You "ask" -- once again -- "How can a government that maintains more than 800 military facilities in more than 140 different foreign countries be anything other than an imperial power?".

I think that we have answered this before: Others -- like Russians, Chinese and various sheikhs -- have comparatively more facilities and a fixed, invariable axon against U.S.A.

P.S.: I listen to him (I mean Eric)! and I love his posts. I suppose many other visitors too. Now, with your permission, can he keep on posting here Z? or he should write to Pravda... like you?

Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric, if anyone listened to you, you would not be posting here.

As Lew Rockwell has written, many people deny that the U.S. government presides over a global empire. If you speak of U.S. imperialism, they will fancy that you must be a decrepit Marxist-Leninist who has recently awakened after spending decades in a coma. Yet the facts cannot be denied, however much Eric's ideology may predispose hims to distort or obfuscate those facts.

How can a government that maintains more than 800 military facilities in more than 140 different foreign countries be anything other than an imperial power?

The hundreds of thousands of troops who operate those bases and conduct operations from them, not to mention the approximately 125,000 sailors and Marines aboard the U.S. warships that cruise the oceans, are not going door to door selling Girl Scout cookies. United States of America is the name; intimidation is the game.

Of course, the kingpins who control this massive machinery of coercion never describe it in such terms. In their lexis, American motives and actions are invariably noble.

Listening to these bigwigs describe what the U.S. forces abroad are doing, you would never suspect that they seek anything but "regional stability," "security," "deterrence of potential regional aggressors," and "economic development and cooperation among nations." Inasmuch as hardly anybody favors instability, insecurity, international aggression, economic retrogression, and mutual strife among nations, the U.S. objectives, and hence the actions taken in their furtherance, would appear to be indisputably laudable.

Yet, from time to time, a U.S. leader lets slip an expression so revealing that it warrants a thousand times greater weight than the vague, mealy-mouthed banalities they routinely dispense. I came across such a statement recently. In seeking funds in 2007 for construction of a $62 million ammunition storage facility at Bagram Air Base, Admiral William J. Fallon, then the commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), referred to Bagram as "the centerpiece for the CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia."

Pause to savor this phrase for a moment; let it roll around in your mind: CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia. What an intriguing expression! What dramatic images of future U.S. military actions it evokes! But can those actions be anything other than the very sort that empires undertake? Ask yourself: why does the U.S. military anticipate conducting operations in Central Asia, a region that lies thousands of miles from the United States and comprises countries that lack either the capacity or the intention to seriously harm Americans who mind their own business in their own national territory? Indeed, what is the U.S. military doing in Central Asia in the first place? Have you ever heard of "the Great Game"?

Our imperial leaders are not embarrassed by the U.S. empire; on the contrary, they are immensely proud of it. They simply do not describe their activities as the maintenance and exploitation of an empire. If you care to read an extended example, I invite you to peruse Admiral Fallon's testimony of May 3, 2007, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, regarding CENTCOM'S "posture." This carefully prepared statement, written in impeccable military bureaucratese, illustrates well how imperial commanders wish to represent their forces' actions and, equally important, how members of Congress wish to have those actions represented to them. Of course, it's all a solemn farce, a polished and meaningless charade staged purely for public-relations purposes -- a ceremonial hors d'oeuvres served in public before the diners consume the entr饬 which consists of a massive amount of the taxpayers' money ladled out to the armed forces and their civilian contractors.

"Our top priority," Fallon declares, "is achieving stability and security in Iraq." Everyone knows, of course, that Iraq was more stable and secure before the U.S. invasion, which suggests that perhaps the quickest way to reestablish those conditions is for the U.S. forces to leave the country.

Because we don't speak or understand Arabic, Pashto, Persian, or any other local language in this part of the world, we haven't a clue as to what's going on in the politics and social life of these countries, and therefore we are constantly at the mercy of English-speaking collaborators who will take the risk of feeding us lies and fabricated "intelligence" long enough to get rich and then flee the country before their infuriated countrymen kill them.

This is why governments need two-way communication, including our own, and why we need more communication, not less with our highest officials, so they stop making such horrible mistakes.

Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

Quote -- Which is why there's a hundred folks manning the Iran Desk, instead of two. -- end quote

I take it you then have no one manning the Syria desk at State anymore, you left that to Ehud Barak, sort of running the U.S. Syria interest section out of a hole in the wall in Kiryat Ben-Gurion

Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Sean, Conceptualize this --

Dipnote as a facet of the civilian response corps.

I don't mean in any formal sense, just that ideas are part of any response to issues involving the public.

I find a lot of relevance in what you are saying, and the following:

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks After Six-Party Informal Ministerial
Tue, 23 Jul 2008 23:00:00 -0500

(excerpt)

SECRETARY RICE: About -- of everybody meeting their obligations, but I don't want to go, you know, into detail about what everybody said, just to say there weren't any surprises. But it wasn't -- you know, it wasn't a standoff with people just stating their positions. I think we had probably three or four rounds of comments. So, you know, the initial -- very often, these things, the initial thing is people read a statement. But a couple of people didn't and then there were several -- it was interactive. It wasn't just people making statements, which is good.

--end--

And getting beyond statements is essential to any solution.

Institutionally, the desire for stable and effective mechanisms creates the slowness of an institution to keep up with change, or adapt to it to a certain extent. Folks get used to doing things a certain way...and get comfortable to the extent that changes are resisted on occasion.

Change is just a process of keeping what works and discarding that which no longer meets the need. Like getting rid of all those Wang computers a few years ago.

State's in a process both of rebuilding its own infrastructure and it's manpower capacity which lends a unique opportunity to really get creative in adapting to the 21st century. Including new models for the mechanisms that are in need of an upgrade.

Which is why there's a hundred folks manning the Iran Desk, instead of two.

As one of the public observing this, I think State is embracing change and adapting to it pretty well on a lot of levels.

Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008

Department Spokesman Sean McCormack writes:

Heath has started a good conversation about the blog and where we take it from here. I have the feeling that we can do a lot more with it to make it a two-way communication. At the moment, we actually talk to one another, but those episodes come in fits and starts. So we will look for ways to make using this blog a more interactive experience. I have a few ideas that involve the blog, YouTube, and new technological capabilities in the State Department briefing room, which might push us at least one step closer to having the conversation I talked about in the first post on DipNote.

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.

Finally, I would also love for you to share your worlds, whether it is daily life or reporting on the unusual, tragic, or inspiring. Maybe those things are one in the same. Whatever the case, I look forward to talking with you via DipNote.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Actually Zharkov, the U.S. government does listen to its citizens, because they are citizens as well. And everyone of them at one time was a private citizen.

Now, since you can only speak to your own experience in this, I think you are correct. It's certainly not news that no one in government listens to you. And the only reason for that is that you arn't making a whole lot of common sense. No insult intended, this is just pure observational analysis.

And I suppose your incentive is as you described it, but remember what I said about you wasting time with Pravda's forum being your onus for coming here, and what I told you about wasting your time trying to convince anyone of your jaundiced vision of America on this forum.

P.S. I don't work for the U.S. gov. , but I've had many interesting interactions with those who do.

If you are unhappy with this blog, then you must be dissatisfied with your interactions with folks here, but this is only because you project a lot of assumptions about them.

I see this as more of your personal problems dealing with those who do not think as you do, rather than any fault of the blog itself.

The only one trying to defend "utterly indefensible, ludicrous positions" is you.

But then I'm used to folks making accusations they themselves are more than a little guilty of.

Got a problem with this, you can always sue me, or sue the U.S. government if you want, I could use a good laugh. Hey, while you're at it, sue the Russian government too, because you seemed to have wasted a lot of your time getting Pravda to impart your message to them.

Remember, half the battle of getting someone to listen to you is how you present yourself to others. If you aren't being credible, "forgetaboutit", it's not going to happen.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

To SNP in Syria -- I am not one to attack individuals who have their own opinion but I feel I must respond to your 7-18-08 blog. Do you really live in Syria? If so then you are seriously misguided to think that President Assad wants to bring positive, humane changes to Syria. What dictator ever does? And it was not too long ago that Hitler was blaming the "evil jews" for all of Germany's problems. You think Americans are ignorant?!! Take a good look at home first.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Lynn, there are so many instances where our government does not listen to citizens that it is not news anymore.

The main reason why American citizens sue the government in courts is because government officials do not listen to the people. This is why we find so many of our elected officials listed as defendants in federal court.

The response illustrates another problem with government blogs, which is, that government employees feel duty-bound to defend utterly indefensible, ludicrous positions.

I suppose an incentive to remain on this blog is the hope that some common sense might eventually trickle down to the bureaucratic level. The idea that ordinary citizens might communicate with their leaders is perhaps too revolutionary a thought, but the volume of communication in America between citizens and government is rather low, while the volume of communication between news media and government is extraordinarily high. A single editorial from a major news outlet often can result in new legislation, a presidential veto, or even a criminal prosecution, while citizens may have to form groups of thousands of citizens expending tens of thousands of man-hours of labor to achieve the same result.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Once upon a time I was in doubt as Zharkov is regarding if anything I had to say to my gov. would generate a human response.

That problem was solved with one phone call.

A little "old school" perhaps, but the internet can't replace person to person contact when you want results.

If you email the Whitehouse, you'll get the eqivilent of a read reciept, but they get so much mail it will be six weeks before anyone reads it...according to the switchboard opperator I talked to there late on a Friday before Cristmas 2005. As she put it, the Whitehouse was "shut down" for the holiday and there wasn't anyone around to take my call. So she swiched me over to DoS and I spoke with a desk officer there.

I'd called about an imminent execution by stoning that the Iranian Republic was about to impose on a few women, I asked him for his email address and sent him the Amnesty Int. article with the details, along with a letter I'd tried to get to the Whitehouse in time (they had 5 days until the sentence was carried out).

So, about a half hour later after I sent the article, I got this message in reply:

"This information has been sent through immediately to the Iran Security Desk for further action."

One might think that our government knows all and sees all, and that citizen imput is irrelevent to them.

Not the case. An informed public actually helps inform the gov. , and Layla M's (one of the women above) case was included in the annual country human rights report (2006).

International pressure halted the execution and this citizen got the results I was looking for from a responsive institution of government.

Safe to say that unless you try, you'll never know just how human a response you might get from public servants.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Lynn in Maryland writes:

@ Zharkov,

While I agree with your larger point (bigger governments have a more difficult time hearing from their citizens), I think it's poorly made when you imply the accessibility that U.S. citizens have to their government is similar to access in an authoritative state like Syria. First of all, try protesting in an authoritative state and see how far that gets you. Also, I'm sure many of the people and agencies you contacted had "contact us" sections on their site, enabling you to get that form letter in return. Special interest groups encourage people to "write their Congressman" because they know these representatives have interns and staffers monitoring the pulse of public opinion, ready to inform their representative on which way the tide is turning on a particular issue. These are not the best or most effective ways to contact the government, but they are just a couple of several ways that citizens can contact the government (in a democratic state) without reprisal.

The U.S. may not have referenda every other day and suggestion boxes on every corner, but there are avenues to be heard. Just because they are not ideal does not mean they are non-existent.

And, for the record, yes I have.

Posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008

Roger in California writes:

Why is the state Department promoting the Churches of Islam Calendar? And if it was such a great idea at the time to use taxpayer funds for this enterprise why is the site that was previously promoting it no longer accessible?

When you decided to to create this calendar, did anyone bother to ask if it was a breach of the Constitution for the U.S Government to show favoritism toward a religion. Will my government also be publishing a Calendar series of Mormon Temples, Catholic Churches, and Jewish Synagouges.

Leave the calendar publishing to the professsionals.

Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ SNP, are you trying to tell me this is some kind of 3600 year old conspiracy theory? Because if you are, that's irrelevent to me.

See, I'm Bhuddist, and I really have no personal attachments to the region's religious bigotries. Including your's. It excemplifies the premis of my previous thoughts on the dysfunctional matter.

That being the case, I find it hypocritical for a nation that sits in the UN, and was an original signatory to its founding charter and human rights documents, to evolve a theocratic mindset as exibited by the imminent stoning to death of 7 women, and one man under the Iranian government's interpretation of Sharia law.

I find your use of emotionally charged adjectives to be somewhat distracting in trying to understand your point of view regarding much of the rest of your Fri Jul 18, post.

Guess I touched a nerve.

You want to try that post again, perhaps if you reword it so it actually relates to reality, then I can give you an unbiased assesment about it.

Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Lynn in Maryland -- Lynn,

(chuckle)....Indeed! It is interesting though when I've talked to a few folks about this blog, they sometimes ask me if I've seen "the men in black" yet. Like I'm going to be investigated or something stupid like getting my computer hacked by the CIA...LOL!

I don't know why that is, but it seems to some of my friends that I'm either off my nut for telling my gov. what I think on this site, or just asking for trouble.

"What? Me worry?" Is my answer to their doubts.

I'm actually a little suprised more people don't stand by their beliefs enough to engage directly with folks in government, after all they work for us..."we the people".

Shy I guess. But not repressed.

Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Lynn in Maryland -- Lynn in Maryland, have you ever received anything other than a computer-generated form letter back from a public official thanking you for your interest in an issue?

I have not with two exceptions, Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, and Senator S.I. Hayakawa. These exceptions do not prove your objection. The fact that the DoS even has a blog is a large exception to the general rule that most large governments prefer little or no input from their citizens.

The DoS does not speak for the entire federal government, nor do they listen for the rest of government.

Our federal government was not the main point, which is, most large governments share this communication disability more or less in common.

Your irony is rather limited by reality, don't you think?

Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008

Lynn in Maryland writes:

@ Zharkov:

Ironic that you write about the U.S. not being willing to hear input from citizens on a state sponsored blog designed for that very purpose.

Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- Actually there are few nasty assault comments on President Ahmadinejad blog, and they were published, such as the one I read calling him insane and mentally ill, of course the poster was from the United States, nevertheless the posts were published online. Why are you comparing Islamic Iran freedom to the U.S.? Despite all newly enacted unconstitutional laws and regulations passed or not passed by Congress, the freedom Americans enjoy still premier in the world (next to Russia). But do compare Iran media and its relative freedom to other countries such s Saudi Arabia or Morocco, even secular Syria, you will notice the resemblance of freedom readily apparent as long as the exercise thereof is within prescribed Islamic Laws, after all it is a country ran by Islamic theocracy.

No, even though we are posting on U.S. blogs still have to be cautious and restricted. We can not blog all what we really need and wants to say because it will run into censorship or risk reprisal not only in Syria but in the U.S. as well, blog editors fears for their security and jobs just as much as the Syrian bloggers, although the leech is longer by couple of feet in America.

Would SNP have the opportunity to blog in Syria, Noooop, never. The evil Jews discourage and set obstacles for Syrians to allow President Assad bring changes to Syria, they are just as happy keeping us backward so they can brag to the ignorant American Politicians and Public about being the only free and Democratic country in the Middle East, sucking American Tax payers cash on the age long charade that America must protect the only Democracy in the Middle East that have similar Western value to America, Jewish Israel. When in fact it is the most murderous State ever existed from the dawn of time to the present, violated every International Law passed and all norms of human decency. It is a cheap sales pitch but still working well on Americans. Imagine Syria is free and Democratic State at good terms with America, imagine Lebanon at peace and HizbuAli sent back in Moslem Vatican-Qom. Just as they did in the 50/70/80/ the stooges (Semites, Arabs and Jews) will invent new troubles just to insure that this never is the case. Because, otherwise the world will forget about two dusty countries, Israel and Jordan, States that were made up of carved out patches of the Syrian Desert. Syria and Lebanon will become the center of economic and cultural power of the Middle East and the destination for the world businessmen, global financial institutions and travelers. What you see today Eric, it is all by design and according to a sinister plan drawn up by Amen/Marduk 3600 years ago.

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Communication with the public should be two-way communication, not merely a one-direction pronouncement and explanations of official policies. The primary feature of dictatorship is one-way communication from the government to the citizens. Dictatorships do not listen, they only speak; they do not receive orders, they only give orders.

The English website for SANA, the Syrian Arab News Agency of the Syrian government has no blog, no forum, and no e-mail address for contacting President Assad or any other part of the Syrian government. This self-imposed isolation is one reason why some governments make bad decisions.

Governments need two-way communication with the public they govern, but also with the public of other nations, to avoid making ridiculous foreign policy decisions. Too often, governments seek information by meeting with each other which provides a distorted view of foreign sentiment and supplies zero public input.

When American public officials want to read communications from the public rather than concern themselves solely with managing their image, they might find themselves making better decisions. After all, our American republic is supposed to be a representative government.

Governments such as Syria and the United States should open themselves to receive communication from whomever wishes to write them about any subject. It might provide a learning experience.

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Michelle in Colorado writes:

A Mosque calendar??? Are you kidding? This is so insulting. Islam is required to destroy the infidel ...that's the American non-Muslim. Why don't you people read the Koran before you prostrate yourselves in front of those that aim to destroy us. Disgusting.

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Yael in West Virginia writes:

What do I think of the State Department's "Social Media"? I am deeply concerned by the fact that the U.S. State Department is purveying 2009 calendars of "Mosques of America" in a "limited edition for Ramadan" (through the Bureau of Administration's Global Publishing Solutions) AND now that bloggers and others have discovered it, is trying to erase any evidence of its existence from the internet. I don't know which is worse, but the combination is incredibly alarming.

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

We can not avoid social media -- it is here to stay. Is that a bad thing? I think not. When was "truth" ever told? Please don't misunderstand, I believe in telling the "truth" but the reality of all reporting is that it is filtered through human frailty. We are all biased, if we are honest with ourselves and with others. To have the right to have different opinions, to have free speech, to be able to disagree with or criticize our institutions, that is what our country is about. And it is with great interest that I read the comments of the other bloggers. Whether we agree or not is not as important as the fact that we are thinking about and responding to the topics that are posted. The comments made are thoughtful and encouraging. I, for one, am impressed.

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ SNP,

I would venture a guess that there is not a heck of a lot of dissenting opinions posted on Iranian State blogs.

Unlike Dipnote, which allows you to.

So I just don't know of what value it really serves the Iranian public.

It seems sometimes that the more a gvernment tries to be in control of media (state media), the less control they actually have over a repressed population.

Which is one reason why the p5+1 offer has a been broadcast into Iran directly for public consumption so that the population will have the offer as it was presented, not as the Iranian government tells them it was.

And hopefully that will help the population have a more informed basis on which to judge its merits for themselves.

You are here because you may post your thoughts freely, without reprisal. Though you have to expect appropriate feedback if you are being offensive.

Would you have this opportunity in Syria? Iran?

Would I?

I doubt it. Do you have any idea how many bloggers have been arrested for their on line viewpoints in Iran?

Are you aware of the Iranian state's mechanisms to block internet sites like this one?

Why is that?

Simple. Their government doesn't want the people thinking aloud in public. They crush protest in the streets, and crush the people's ability to become informed on line.

So what do you think about that?

Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

It occurs to me that many blogs sponsor various things.

Take Blackfive.com for example. A military blog by the author of "Blogs of War" -a collection of soldier's reflections regarding Iraq.

The blog sponsors "Soldier's Angels" and other support groups for those serving in the military.

Why not do that here for DoS?

Oh heck, let's do it right and link up a bunch of NGO's State and USAID work with daily, and really give the public an expanded forum. NGO bloggers...???

We have PRT leaders blogging, I say the more the merrier.

A topic suggestion box would be another feature I'd add, as well as a way to track archived posts by author, by subject and by date.

From the user end of the blog, it would help track my own thoughts over time and subject, if I wish to refer to them in a current post. Or if anyone else does.

Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

No doubt the efforts of The U.S. State Dept through these Public Media present a positive image of the United States to the world. One that in fact represents an accurate picture of Americans than what the world sees through traditional State Controlled media or as the case in U.S., grossly manipulated. Whoever came up with it all, managed to grind the ideas through the system for approval in the arcane conservatism of traditional institutions deserves some kind of recognition. However, to keep the record straight the Ayatollah Khemenei and Iran President Ahmadinejad beat you to it by couple of years.

Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008

Meg in California writes:

It is nice that State is branching out into various social media. It might help them connect, and share information with new audiences (though I doubt many people will be drawn to these state sponsored efforts). More importantly it will teach State how to better engage in this new environment.

Ultimately, State, and most USG offices will learn that to be most effective they can't toot their own horn but will have to find ways to engage trusted, established, credible sources in the world of social media.

And clearly, State is learning...For instance: yesterday Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Glassman held a teleconference with bloggers...then MountainRunner, a popular blog on U.S. foreign policy, particularly public diplomacy wrote about it. I trust MountainRunner to report and comment reflectively so I read with interest what he had to report.

The very fact that the undersecretary thought it valuable to include that community in his message demonstrates a willingness to try new things and engage in new media. The more ways State can find to engage with trusted new media sources the more successful they will be.

It is fine to have your own YouTube channel but better if you can create programming that gets carried on a popular channel that people already know and trust, it makes your message more credible.

I am not saying it will be easy and I applaud these first steps, I just hope that the first steps won't be the last.

Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008

Jim in Texas writes:

In a world that no longer values the 'truth', all forms of the 'social media' will speed up the loss of this very important value. As more forms of internet marketing become available to the public, our youth will no longer know what 'truth' or 'honor' means.

There are no longer 'black and white' issues, only gray. And with social media applied, it will just become 'shades of gray'.

Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008

Kiesha in Pennsylvania writes:

First of all I love the blog topic!!!!

Also, the creation of a facebook page for the State Department is a brilliant idea. It is an excellent way to bridge the gap between the State Department and young America as well as a young global audience. Using modern technology is a great way to inform those who are unaware of the work that is done by the United States Government as well as the Department of State.

And as my generation (I'm 25) becomes increasingly concerned and engulfed in global matters (Darfur, human trafficking, war) it is wonderful for us to have an outlet via the internet and on a social networking site such as facebook where we can be informed, educated and allowed to express our own opinions on certain issues.

Great job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008

Page 1 of 1 pages