The Moorish Wanderer

Why The F-16 deal Isn’t Such a Good One – and Why “Retrofitting” Old Hardware is Better

This is a bit of old news, but I have had the opportunity to read about it, and at the same time, came across some documentation that really got me thinking: did we really need to spend 21 Bn Dirhams in buying that squadron of 24 F-16 Falcons?

I am no weapons expert, much less a hardware acquisition pundit. But I do not buy into the premise that on questions of defence, citizens and partisan politicians in Morocco should not be interested in one of these policy areas commonly referred to as “reserved domains”. After all, the Armed Forces are funded by the taxpayers. Open government applies also to defence, and it certainly does not weaken the Armed Forces’ stand with its citizens, quite the contrary.

F-16 Falcon model: a white elephant? (picture: http://www.skyscrapercity.com)

It is quite strange that, across the political spectrum, almost all parties have someone in the leadership with some military experience: USFP former Premier, Abderrahamane Youssoufi, was part of the MLA-South High Command between 1957 and 1959, and so was Mohamed Bensaid Ait Idder. Mahjoubi Aherdane and late Abdelkrim Khatib, respectively MP and MPDC/PJD grandees, led MLA units in the Spanish sector in the North between 1955 and 1956. Ahmed Benjelloun, PADS leader, was part of the 1973 insurrection failure (and has benefitted from extensive military training abroad) Abdellah Kadiri, former PND leader (and currently at odds with PAM) is a former officer with the Armed Forces in the 1970s. There are other instance I might have overlooked, but the point is made: there are enough politicians, albeit ageing a bit, with some basic military knowledge to shape up a decent debate whenever defence policy issues come up; But it seems only too many politicians, with or without previous military experience, shy away from policies that sometimes involve dozens of billions of Dirhams, and do affect security on our borders and even beyond.

Because the military and security issues are muted on the political field, no one can attack liberals (and radicals) as “soft on defence”, but the standard (unsubstantiated) charge of un-patriotism usually trailing the left in Morocco can always pick up on this, would the public debate open up on a very secretive topic.

As the Arizona National Guard website pointed out:

The four Moroccan students will train for a year and a half in the F-16, Block 42 aircraft here as part of their conversion from the F-5 to the F-16. Six additional student pilots are expected to arrive for upgrade training, as well as a limited number of maintenance personnel in specialties ranging from air frame to crew chiefs, according to Major Haase.

So, we can assume the Air Force is considering phasing out the F-5 Freedom Fighter and Tiger II. Will they throw them away? in all likelihood, no. The claim is made because up to 2010, the Moroccan ground forces still retain about 200 M-48 Patton Tanks in store, a vehicle designed and put into active duty with the United States army in 1953. The analogy here points out the seemingly incoherence in the policy of the whole purchasing hardware strategy: are we phasing out old hardware in favour of new units, or are we just piling up hardware overtime? Because when old equipment remains stored, it costs a lot and is not put much to use (save perhaps for some minor military manoeuvres or for training)

High-ranking Moroccan officials (among them Prime Minister Fassi) at Marrakesh Aeronautics Fair (Picture: maghrebinfo.actu-monde.com)

I came across some documentation about the F-5 project back in the early 1960: Washington needed specific military hardware to be issued to Allied countries in Asia, South America, as well as in Europe, where they would be best equipped to face the Warsaw Pact troops. The plane was so popular with NATO and Allied countries that Taiwan, Spain, Canada and South Korea managed to get licenses to build local versions. The Moroccan government can always negotiate with the American Congress and/or the White House to activate the Mutual Assistance Program Act in our favour, and transfer technology and license to build our own F-5 Fighters; We do enjoy the Major non-NATO ally status, so it is always feasible…

The idea is not far-fetched, and could actually benefit Morocco’s industry as well as defence potential: first, let us not be coy about it; Morocco bought these F-16 as a response to Algeria’s purchase of Sukhoï-30 Russian-made airplanes. Whether our Airforce needed the F-16 to balance things up is a matter of debate.

But let us consider the South Korean case: here’s a country with a more strenuous and quite bellicose relationship with its Northern neighbour, who retained nonetheless a considerable fleet of 194 F-5 in all its variants. While it is true their Air force retains 39 F-15 and 164 F-16, their fleet remains balanced and still relies on F-5s, as half of their fighter wings are made up of these. By contrast, the additional 24 Moroccan F-16 will not be as helpful as one might think; We will have 90 fighter aircrafts lined up, but logistics and poor interoperability will not allow the new squadrons to operate efficiently, so the gambit that these F-16s will impose Moroccan air superiority is seriously compromised. Finally, South Korea has another advantage to its Air force strength: it locally manufactures its F-16s as well as F-5s. Morocco doesn’t.

Furthermore, the F-5s has a proven record of good field operability, it is:

[…] suitable for various types of ground-support and aerial intercept missions, including those which would have to be conducted from sod fields in combat areas.

And considering potential theatre of operations in Morocco, that means desert field and poor maintenance conditions. Accounts point out that past a certain point in the airplane’s 8,000hrs service life:

As these aircraft age and operating conditions changed, the reliability of systems and components decreases, and failures occur more often, which increased maintenance costs. Increased failures affect aircraft maintainability, requiring more maintenance and often increasing repair times when more hard breaks occur. In the case of the F-16, operational usage had been more severe than design usage (eight times more), resulting in the acceleration of its airframe service life at a rate that may not let it reach its expected overall service life.

And since I assume we are not buying a new batch of F-16 any time soon, the option of retrofitting incumbent F-5s seem a less expensive course of action, considering the low $ 2.1Mln cost per aircraft. And it would be an even better idea to negotiate building a factory to manufacture locally-made F-5s; It would at least save a lot in terms of cash, hard currency and government budget.

There is another sale coming up, this time on transport planes -the Italian C-27J- a  €130Mln deal with Alenia Aeronautica. According to the IISS 2010 Military Balance, they should be expected very soon. Why an Italian aircraft? why not upgraded versions of the 19 C-130 Herculeswe already have? What is the argument behind the purchase?

Nothing but the best for our troops. Hopefully.

These observation I submit to the reader are made insofar public information is available. Perhaps there are other elements that weighted in and favoured the F-16 deal, among which a better offer and more convenient scheme to finance the planes. But the thing is, we need to get a debate going over how best we should equip our troops, not only to defend our borders, but also participate in overseas operations with the UN and NATO. And the retrofitting option should, in my opinion, be considered in the light of economic benefits implied in purchasing licenses.

We need to rationalize our equipment, instead of just piling on obsolete and spent hardware: the budget allocated to their maintenance is no public investment. Even operational or tactical requirements are a good reason to standardize ordinance and hardware: fewer logistical problems and stronger national defence; When these policies are implemented, there will be no need for national security cuts: costs will go down and free resources for more immediate and pressing issues.

What’s Next?

Posted in Tiny bit of Politics by Zouhair ABH on July 15, 2011

Jed Bartlet‘s favourite catchphrase applies fully to the post-referendum environment in Morocco. Both domestically and abroad, Makhzen authorities have reasserted their strength and mastery of the national political agenda. I will certainly have an opportunity to go back on more details regarding the turnout, its geographical distribution and how its significance is more important as a symbol than their intrinsic levels.

First off, let us have a look at the various feedbacks to our Basri-era phenomenal figure of 73.46% and:

Rabat – Le nombre des votants qui se sont prononcés en faveur du projet de nouvelle constitution a atteint 9.653.492, soit 98,50 pc, selon les résultats provisoires du référendum constitutionnel du vendredi, a indiqué, samedi, le ministre de l’Intérieur, M. Taieb cherqaoui. […] Selon les résultats provisoires du référendum tel que proclamés par les 39.969 bureaux de vote mis en place sur l’ensemble du territoire national, le nombre des inscrits a été de 13.451.404 électeurs, dont 9.881.922 votants, soit un taux de participation de 73,46 pc, a ajouté le ministre. (MAP Communiqué)

— Rabat. the total number of voters supporting the new draft constitution amounted to 9,653,492, i.e. 98.5% following provisional results from Referendum Day held on Friday. Interior Minister Taieb Cherqaoui announced on Saturday. […] provisional results are proclaimed accross the 39.969 polling stations spread across the nation. Total number of voters amounted to 13,451,404 among which 9,881,922 showed up, reaching a turnout of 73.46%

French foreign minister Alain Juppé supported the Referendum results in these terms:

“Selon les résultats partiels donnés par le Ministère de l’intérieur marocain, le pourcentage des votants qui se sont prononcés en faveur du projet de nouvelle constitution a été de 98,49 pour cent des personnes inscrites sur les listes électorales. Le nombre des votants s’est élevé à 9.228.020, soit un taux de participation de 72,65 pour cent.

Nous devons bien entendu attendre les chiffres définitifs, mais il apparait d’ores et déjà que le peuple marocain a pris une décision claire et historique. […] La révision de la constitution a été conduite à partir de consultations étendues, associant tous les partis politiques, les syndicats et une large palette de représentants de la société civile.

Nous saluons la forte participation du peuple marocain à ce référendum. Elle a donné lieu à des débats animés et substantiels, reflétés dans les médias et notamment sur internet.[…]La France se tient naturellement aux cotés du Maroc pour l’accompagner dans cette nouvelle ère et forme des vœux pour que la mise en œuvre de cette nouvelle constitution s’accompagne de nouveaux progrès et de nouvelles réussites.”

As for the United States State Department, the language was equally praising and very supportive of the Referendum, but more cautious and overall non-committal to the whole process, indeed:

The United States welcomes Morocco’s July 1 constitutional referendum. We support the Moroccan people and leaders in their efforts to strengthen the rule of law, raise human rights standards, promote good governance, and work toward long-term democratic reform that incorporates checks and balances. We look forward to the full implementation of the new constitution as a step toward the fulfilment of the aspirations and rights of all Moroccans.

Short, succinct and positively abstract. The State Department commits to nothing and keeps its options open.

Finally, the European Union press release doesn’t deviate from the quasi-unanimous praises of our referendum:

“We welcome the positive outcome of the referendum on the new Constitution in Morocco and commend the peaceful and democratic spirit surrounding the vote,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and neighbourhood policy commissioner Stefan Fuele said in a joint statement. […]

“The reforms proposed in it constitute a significant response to the legitimate aspirations of the Moroccan people and are consistent with Morocco’s Advanced Status with the EU,” the said. “Now we encourage the swift and effective implementation of this reform agenda,” the statement said.

[…] “The European Union is ready to fully support Morocco in this endeavour.”

So in diplomatic terms, our significant partners are basically accepting the result, and this international support -some might consider it to be a blank check- makes the regime more secure and confirms its hegemony over the Moroccan political discourse.

"How on earth did they manage such a score?"

This is even more obvious domestically: even though charges of ballot-stuffing and incoherent figures tarnished the referendum’s credibility, lambda Moroccans will not gainsay the result. The typical Moroccan voter (Male, Father of three children and living in a rural or sub-urban area) is more than likely to have voted for the constitution, not because what they would have read was interesting and appealing to their grievances, but because of multifarious factors: their social environment does not allow for criticism, individual decision-making or the use of Cartesian logics. Do I sound elitist and full of contempt? Perhaps I do. But the figures speak for themselves: the highest turnout figures were recorded in regions like Oued Ed-Dahab-Lagouira (92.19%) Guelmim-Es Smara (86.76%) Laâyoune-Boujdour-Sakia el Hamra (84.05%) and Doukkala-Abda (80.06%) All three regions are very tribal, and rely heavily on Makhzen administration for favours and other privileges, thus the higher outcome compared to national turnout. Conversely, low turnout in Casablanca and Rabat (respectively 57.17% and 72.39%) are thus because of its more individualistic, or shall we say more community-oriented settings, plus local administration has less leverage over its denizens, and so less likely to persuade them to vote (one way or the other).

The pro-democracy platform needs to pack up and look for new issues to campaign on, simply because the showdown that took place ever since February 20th is coming to an end, and not the movement’s advantage. The referendum might have been fixed, perhaps there will never be a solid body of evidence to suggest a nation-wide ballot-stuffing, and the absence of impartial scrutiny has a lot to do with it -perhaps if the retained option was a No-vote instead of an all-out boycott, there would have been some civic control over referendum proceedings. Furthermore, and because of the comparatively few people who took to the streets last week and today only confirm Moroccan apathy -and implicit acceptance- towards the referendum results.

The whiff of fresh air brought by the Feb20 demonstrations into the hermetical Moroccan political house, it seems, is losing speed. The long overdue New Politics many of us have been awaiting is yet again postponed to an unspecified date. Subsequently, there is a need to turn the public’s attention to more relevant issues: the national economy and the economics of national debt; the crumbling standards in public sector departments like Health and Education. More down to earth, issues that matter to the public are few and pressing: employment, standards of living and education for the future generations.

Paradoxically, these are the issues that explain the already existing and dangerously exacerbated social tensions between the haves and havenots. In between, our very own “squeezed middle” are the ones paying for these tensions, whether in demonstrations or just as a scapegoat for social resentment. I wish there was some sociological review of Feb20 prominent members; I would bet good money that many of these are of Middle-Class background, and those attacking them -the so-called “Baltagyas”- are from lower income and social classes. In any case, waging a political agenda does not seem to gather a lot of durable support, and that is why something else needs to be done.

Constitutional reforms can no longer be used as flag to rally dissatisfied individuals and communities. Rather, a more down-to-earth set of agenda focused on these immediate needs can win favours and support to build on more political and strategic grievances later on.

FPC Tour – Netroots Nation Conference

Posted in Flash News, Read & Heard, The Wanderer, Tiny bit of Politics by Zouhair ABH on June 22, 2011

It feels good to be (liberal/radical) home.

For those who are not familiar with the awesome Dailykos blog, NetRoot Nation is the new name of Yearlykos, the annual convention of all progressive bloggers in America. And quite frankly, the keynote address (2,500 fired-up left-wingies in the audience) was the closest thing to a regular party convention in the United States, and we FPC bloggers, have been invited to attend the conference, and even participate in some of various panels, among which I spoke on the Arab Spring and the use Youth make of new media in their pursuit of democracy.

The use of new media in pro-democracy political forces.  Ah… I still remember myself and a couple of friends of mine, hammering out the leadership to come up with a media strategy for the party to circumvent the handicap they are suffering from in term of media visibility. Get the internet, set up a coherent communication strategy, and for crying out loud, TAKE OUT THAT F**KING OBSOLETE WEBSITE! The best answer they could come up was: “that’s very nice of you kids, keep it up” which is codeword for “ok kids, are you lecturing us on how to communicate with the masses? you are very sweet, you armchair activists“.

And truth be told, I do feel contrite about that, because as an expatriate, I cannot do much on the field, except perhaps try and convince fellow expatriate students that embracing democracy and lobbying for political awareness is a temporary patch for this hunger for action. Then comes February 20th, suddenly, even the most tech-conservative party leaders come to the conclusion that the internet is a useful tool, and straight up, a video channel has been created, a couple of (ill) produced videos uploaded there… a patchy start, but a start nonetheless.

That was the substance of my intervention on the question whether bloggers and cyber-activists are “arm-chair activists” or whether they can take their issues to the field and campaign accordingly. And quite frankly, the underlying assumption of this idea, following which only a marginal fraction of Moroccans are connected is challenged by the data at hand: there is a growing number of individuals connected to the web, many of whom are connected via mobile device and getting access to mobile and high-debit connections. There is also an increasing number of young Moroccans -and now, even the seniors- who prefer to get their news from the Internet first, as well as spending increasing hours on the web look for the information they cannot find -or with which they can interact- in more traditional media outlets. The figures put forward by the ANRT body are comprehensive on that matter.

In less than two years (September 2009-March 2011) the number of individual internet subscribers have more than doubled, and there are now about 2.1 Million households connected to Internet in Morocco, about 3/4 of these being mobile (i.e. 3G subscribers) Furthermore, an increasing number of internet users have been looking for high-debit connections, a indeed those with low-debit connections have decreased dramatically, and as of March 2011; only 966 subscribers kept on the classic internet connection contract. As a result, Moroccan internet users have become increasingly mobile, and consume larger packs of data, hence the quasi-total subscription to 1 Mb/s offers. Considering these numbers, the potential internet public out there can be at least of 8 Million and counting. The idea that internet is confined to a small population becomes more and more irrelevant.

There was also a discussion on how the civil society, or more generally the public debate might benefit from the new/social media offer. The curse of our own civic society is that it is lively and diverse, but lacks the proper channels to publicize its deeds and attract new volunteers. Because the public media outlets are either locked-in (like the TV and Radio Stations) to those parts of civic society deemed too “politically incorrect”, and if there is no alternative channel for these organizations to express themselves and contribute to any issue of the public debate, then they would ultimately die out, and slowly, only the blandest and uninteresting would survive in an decorum media world.

2,000 to 2,500 delegates at Netroots Nation, all progressive and left-wingers.

the new media managed to spice up the public debate among those who care about the issues. We are indeed a small, tiny minority on twitter, less so on facebook, but there are definitely thousands of blogs around the Moroccan web-citizens and NGOs, many of whom are opinion leaders or likely to be so. Since regular media channels are either locked up, or engaged in politically correct soliloquies, social and new media become more attractive to those how cannot air their views and opinions. It is likely to be messy and disharmonious, but that’s a start.

I also had the opportunity to meet Dailykos founder Markos Moulitsas -who was a bit surprised as I was over-excited when I first met him… The “meet and greet” with the Dailykos community session, as well as the other bloggers -most prominently, John Aravosis from Americablog– were pleasing: they were pleased to meet bloggers from around the world (I think the FPC group was the only foreign delegation to Netroots) and where genuinely interested in each one of us bloggers’ issues on political blogging in our respective countries. Special thanks to John Aravosis, who readily offered to arrange short meetings with Keith Ellisson, Minnesota Congressman and the first Muslim to join the House (the meeting was abruptly interrupted when a reporter barged in) then member and media Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (I had to meet one of these people!) Brandon English. Oh, there’s also a short audio interview I made I still need to find… The meetings with these US web-dignitaries were impressive indeed, because these are actually able to influence, or at least to make themselves heard from even the highest spheres of power in the United States. And reciprocally, they were eager to hear about our political blogging in our countries, and expressed admiration for out work (at this point, I think a “Head-Swelling” alert sign needs to be put out)

Last but not least, there was an incident that showed the American paradox: on our second day at Minneapolis, and prior to the Karaoke night (which I have spent with Dailykos contributor UnaSpencer, chatting about politics)  a GOP (Republican) Blogger harassed two Hijab-wearing young women by filming them in an outrageous bullying manner under the guise of ‘Freedom Of Speech’.

The Netroots buddies around swiftly retaliated by filming him too, and then called the police for harassing the two young women. It was quite a sight indeed!Next day, a Flashmob was organized at the GOP Blog Conference at Minneapolis, with Muslim and non Muslim women as a protest against the bigoted attack. Unaspenser explains:

FPC Tour – Day 2 and 3

Posted in Flash News, Read & Heard, The Wanderer by Zouhair ABH on June 17, 2011

I did not have time to blog about the second day last evening because of the exhausting flight route we took, a strange one in fact, as the flight from Washington DC to Minneapolis MI had to go through Atlanta GA, which is 872km South… (incidentally, I found out that Washington has a “small” national airport named after President Regan, while Atlanta was honouring the former Georgian governor and President Carter. It reminds me of  places and significant infrastructure named after former significant leaders in Morocco as well…

The second day had a lighter timetable, and changed focus from official policy to a more grass-root activism in new social media use for advocacy and causes. The morning event was hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy, based too in Washington, with some significant panellists and organizations, notably Robert Guerra from Freedom House. The conference main themes evolved around the tools developed and used by cyber-activists, with an emphasis on the Arab Spring, as well as internet safety for these activists, and -surprisingly enough- how private corporations can indeed participate in this process by committing to what Susan Morgan (Global Work Initiative, GNI) described as a kind of ethical policy in protecting freedom of speech and digital gathering.

Of all four panellists, Meier’s contribution was interesting to listen to: his remarks focused on the live reports on the Internet during the Egyptian uprising, as well as the very promising Ushahidi project. He was quick to point out that the pure web-activism, in terms of time allocation and resources consumption, is comparatively less important  (Meier gave a rule of thumb estimation of 10%) than the essential grass-roots work, to gather up testimonies, videos, pictures, and quite simply to report on the ground situation.

Though it was an NED conference, there were some interesting people attending the meeting, and among those were internews, who basically design softwares and train bloggers and cyber-activists on how to bypass governmental censorship (firewalls and others) and basically work on the ways and means to insure freedom of speech.

Meier's presentation during the NED Meeting

It was quite strange to notice that these people, even though they do receive some kind of public support, actually contribute more -in efficiency and resources- than the State Department. It might have to do with the fact that any support from an official body of the US government would be construed as foreign meddling in domestic affairs, and that the cause of Freedom of Speech, as the official goal of governmental policy, is best advanced with NGOs with seemingly no ties to any public American institution. So it was a bit peculiar for me to note that they are doing more on the ground by designing pieces of software and training cyber-activists how to use the internet safely, and by raising awareness among international -and in our case, American- public opinion. And quite frankly, my Bahraini fellow FPC blogger and journalist, Lamees, might actually benefit more from their support than that of the State Department’s.

The second day following touch down at Minneapolis was lighter, and we had the opportunity to visit the University of Minnesota’s‘ campus, more specifically the School Of Journalism who accepted to host a morning meeting for all of us. The talks evolved around the impact of use of the internet on reporting news. Now, because it is a school of journalism, and because the scholars and graduate students who attended the talks with us have a focus on Journalism, the various talks evolved around how journalists can use the social media to get the story out, especially in the case of the Tahrir Square rallies. There was also a discussion on the shortcomings of such tool, more specifically how to verify ‘the story’ and how journalists can make sure the local contacts are reporting genuine facts from the ground.

Today is the second day with NetRoot Nation 2011 Conference. Follow the Hashtag #nn2011 on twitter to keep updated on what’s happening!

FPC Tour – Day 1

Posted in Flash News, Read & Heard, The Wanderer, Tiny bit of Politics by Zouhair ABH on June 14, 2011

Today was hellish. The heavy schedule was a bit harsh, and consisted of three meetings with a fairly high echelon of the US-State Department policy makers, then two lighter meetings with State Department officials in charge of implementing these policies (and an occasional interlude devoted to visiting the Newseum, a highly recommended Museum on journalism and News reporting). the Foreign Press Centre Tour people run a pretty tight ship, which is all for the better, but as far as I am concerned, and for all their kindness, I was dead tired at the end of the day. But it really was worth it.

When I met the fellow bloggers prior and engage with them during the day, I genuinely felt humbled and a bit out of place. Many of them have grass-roots activism record, and for some of them, there are genuine and serious life-threatening implications to their web-activism; The best I can come up with, insofar my contributions are compared to theirs, is some thoughts on social engineering and economic policy, which is a pretty meagre record. Furthermore, next to some of these countries, Morocco does sound like a paradise of sorts; it might not be a democracy, and it surely is lacking in safeguards regarding freedom of speech, but it certainly does not have a record in pursuing ruthlessly its dissidence, certainly not in the fashion other countries are know to be dealing with their owns’. It certainly does put some perspective to it, and I have to recognize that, even though there is police brutality and a general sense of soft pressure on their cyber-dissidence, the Moroccan authorities are not as systematic in their repression as Bahrain, or Iran, or Pakistan are.

At the Newseum, next to the Pullitzer Award-winning pictures.

The meetings with the senior officials were interesting and refreshing: I personally did not have much opportunity to interact with senior officials – even in Morocco- but US policy-makers we have had the opportunity to meet do have a very pleasant way of conciliating their silver-tongue-like speech, with what they wanted the meetings to be, namely a free and frank exchange of views. We met successively with Alec Ross, Senior Advisor, Judith Mc Hale, Under-Secretary, and Daniel Baer, Deputy Assistant Secretary. So that was the first time I met with high-ranking officials, and that might explain the candid way I am about to describe the paradox, for the United States, of being both a supporter of freedom and web-activism, while keeping close ties with repressive regimes.

It was a bit surreal though, because I felt as if they wanted to take us into their confidence -and I felt that was particularly true of Ross and Baer, while keeping the diplomatic traditional codewords and a very pondered, very polished speech to describe the 21st century statecraft doctrine (that’s Mrs McHale’s part). Because Alec Ross, in his quality as a Senior Advisor for Innovation, has been intimately involved with this doctrine, his explanation of its main features gave some insight of what I believe to be a paradox in US diplomacy, especially towards freedom of speech. Now, according to Mr Ross, it was a stated policy for all past and current 67 Secretaries of State, from Thomas Jefferson to Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the United States support and promote Freedom of Speech, the right to have access to information… whatever the leaders of the Free World have to do. And yet, the main features of this ’21st Century Statecraft’ new doctrine are an implicit admission of failure to meet these standards, or shall we say of past complacency about past (and present) alliances with oppressive regimes that do not necessarily allow dissidence to express itself.

All Work and No Play Makes Johnny a Dull Diplomat

This of course does not mean they did not take an interest in trying to study the opposition groups -and I suspect that’s one of the FPC Tour purposes. Nothing wrong with that, as it fits the purpose of the exercise, the exploration of practical uses of web-tools in empowering civic activism and individuals into civic actions;

As for local US involvement, Mr Ross has repeatedly said that US ambassadors have “One Mouth and Two Ears” and should therefore be listening, and at the same time interacting with the local web-activists (he referred to the numerous twitter-feeds embassies around the world set up for their local activities) The trouble is, the impression many have come to form of the American diplomacy is rather that of “Two Mouths and One Ear”, where the United States support democratic principles, and yet are actively considering countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bahrain or countries in Central Asia to be “Strategic Partners”.  And it seems the State Department is funding a $28 Million-program in developing censorship-circumvention software and other solutions to bypass governmental web-access blocking routines, all of which is an eminent contribution to freedom of speech and web-citizen activism.

There were pretty straightforward questions from my fellow bloggers, which concentrated on the shortcomings of official US commitment to democracy and freedom of speech. The remarks were not idealistic, i.e. the bloggers were disillusioned about how effective this support is, but nonetheless did want to know more about how US Support can translate into field and local actions. And that’s where the second type of meetings came in play, where we had had the opportunity to meet two State Department bloggers, Laura Rodriguez and Luke Forgerson in DipNote (the official State Dept. Blog) Both seem to be more aware of the shortcomings of a too grandiloquent commitment to free speech. On the other hand, and because they work closely with USAID programs around the world, they were able to provide us with practical examples of US support to web-activism, and were overall, more in touch with the blogging issue.

Overall, I had the impression high and middle-ranking officials we met today were not trying to convey America’s wholehearted support of a new world order where every citizen has a right to a digital expression of their opinions, but rather their interest in the trends they have recorded everywhere in the world. I am no diplomatic code-breaker, but that’s what I felt was the implicit message in both Deputy Assistant Baer and Under-Secretary McHale’s remarks; As a matter of fact, if it was not for the rhetorical mantra about America as the “moral leader of the free world”, it was  very informative of how the State Department is adapting its scope and how it relates to the rest of the world, and it could gain a lot more credibility that way. But then again, the United States, just like any country, needs to look after their interest, even if those contradict stated moral principles, and that, I believe, was more or less considered as a given among all  participants in these meetings.

State Department Fresco at the Entrance. The building is really impressive: lots of conference rooms, a business centre... and tight security.

That’s all for today! Tomorrow will be the last day in Washington, as we are heading to the NetRoot Conference in Minneapolis afterwards.