I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. Because of academic interests, I post frequently on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
There’s been some discussion about a recent ABC News report that a Fulbright scholar in Bolivia was asked to “spy” on Venezuelans & Cubans in Bolivia (to be precise: to report if he had seen any, who, and where) during his mandatory security briefing.1 I’ll refer to the discussion at Gringo Tambo (a group blog of primarily ex-Fulbrighters who study Bolivia).
But a few comments:
First, I was never asked to spy on anyone while a Fulbright scholar from September 2003 through July 2004. I don’t know anyone else who was, either (at least in our cohort).
Second, I agree that it was grossly inappropriate for an embassy official (of any rank) to make such a request (even if “casually”) of any Fulbright scholars. It not only violates the Fulbright program’s mission, it also violates basic research ethics (as I understand them).
Third, I also think that it was perhaps irresponsible for the scholar in question to make his report so public, without first pursuing appropriate channels. The scandal has done little to change official policy (though it did shed light on some need to tighten the briefing protocols), but it did jeopardize both the Fulbright & Peace Corps programs in Bolivia—not to mention the safety of current & future researchers (as per the comments by Bruno & Jonathan at the GT blog). I worry that the scholar was less concerned about these issues than about making a splash (he was photographed for the story wearing a “Che” hat).
Fourth, there is an explicit prohibition against “being involved in politics” in the host country for Fulbrighters. This would include both “spying” for the US government, or working for a political party or organization in the host country. Of course, that’s a fuzzy area for many researchers (and, frankly, often ignored: after all, what does “being involved in politics” mean?). But I do think that taking an embassy matter to the Bolivian foreign minister—before taking it to US officials—was perhaps a breach of that proscription, since the move clearly created an international incident (from my knowledge of the Fulbright organization, a letter to the head office would’ve likely produced the same desired effect: dismissal of the embassy official in question).
My reason for that bit of criticism is that—having gone through an embassy security briefing myself—these briefings are often attended by a mix of embassy & non-embassy personnel (e.g. Fulbright fellows or Peace Corps volunteers). I’m sure State Department staff are required to gather basic level intelligence for the embassy. In the future, it may be more appropriate for the embassy to give specific entrance briefings for only non-staff personnel. That might help w/ the confusion.
---- 1 All incoming Fulbright scholars are required to attend a security briefing. IMHO: The meetings are redundant for most Fulbright scholars. I assume that a Fulbright scholar assigned to Bolivia is familiar w/ the basics do’s & dont’s of the country. I suspect the briefings are primarily a legal requirement, so that injured/sick fellows can’t sue the government for their ignorance about basic safety issues in country.
I worry that the scholar was less concerned about these issues than about making a splash (he was photographed for the story wearing a “Che” hat).
I don’t see what is wrong with wearing a Che hat or wanting to make a splash. He seems to me like a principled guy to me who would not make himself accomplice of the scandalous, immoral (and also utterly incompetent) foreign policy of the US. Others might have just ignored the request, but he was willing to go public. Bravo for him!
Posted by
Jorge
February 11, 2008 10:16 PM
Yes, I clearly agree that the embassy official utterly screwed up (and I'm glad he's been recalled). But was going public in the best interest of all parties (here I mean not just the US or Bolivian government, but also the PCVs, Fulbright fellows, and other researchers)? I'm not sure.
We can certainly disagree. But it's interesting that more than one GT blogger (and all w/ leftist bona fides) worry about the safety of future (and current!) researchers, as well as future access to research sites. Could this guy have stood on principle in a way that didn't pour flames on a fire? I think so. I think he had a chance to be diplomatic (and teach the embassy official a lesson). Instead, he chose to go public and contribute to escalating tensions between two countries.
Also, for the record: All the news reports about this agree on this matter: It is not US policy to ask Fulbright fellows to spy in other countries. It is, of course, policy for US embassy personnel to gather intelligence. And that's not just US policy, that's the policy of all countries.
The problem is that the US embassy gives those ridiculous & incredibly boring "security" briefings for Fulbright fellows. And they're the same briefings that new incoming embassy personnel get. I remember that at my briefing, the attendees included two other Fulbright fellows, as well as some new embassy staff & some spouses. So there's room for confusion. There shouldn't be, of course, in a well-run bureaucracy. But clearly there is. So clearly the US embassy in La Paz is not a well-run bureaucracy.
Van Schaick said he met Thursday with Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca to report the incident.
Posted by
LK
February 11, 2008 10:46 PM
Again, I'm not sure that meeting w/ a Bolivian government official was the best decision, for the various reasons I stated above.
In particularly, I wonder why he felt it was necessary to make this public now (in February) when the event happened in November. If he was offended in November, why not make it public then? Why wait nearly three months?
It is not US policy to ask Fulbright fellows to spy in other countries.
Just like it is not US policy to waterboard detenees.
It is, of course, policy for US embassy personnel to gather intelligence. And that's not just US policy, that's the policy of all countries.
Absolutely not. The mission of an embassy normally does not include, and should not include, the gathering of intelligence. Decent countries simply do not do it, even less if doing so might put their citizens at risk. Can you imagine, say, the Swiss embassy asking their aid volunteers to spy on the Cubans? It is amazing to me that you would blame a courageous citizen for denouncing publicly what is by any standards inadmissible and immoral behavior of the US embassy and suggest that he should have quietly complained to the State Department instead. The fact is that US increasingly resembles the Soviet Union in its methods and that is unacceptable.
Posted by
Jorge
February 12, 2008 5:34 AM
Jorge:
I think we're going in circles here. Clearly, if individuals violate US policy they should be punished. But some of your examples (waterboarding, comparing the US to the USSR) are a bit extreme.
As for intelligence gathering ... it's not the same as "spying" (as you seem to define it). It is a primary function for embassies to gather intelligence. Gathering intelligence includes anything from gaging the interest levels of foreign diplomats in negotiating a treaty, learning about a country's economy, etc. Heck, knowing what the capital of a country is is considered "gathering intelligence" in the broad sense I'm using.
You're right, it's not the job of embassies to do James Bond stuff. But gathering intelligence is not James Bond. Even most of what the CIA does is read foreign newspapers. Hardly risky business.
But we are going in circles. I think we both agree that the embassy official in question was wrong (I even stated that I'm glad he's been recalled). So our disagreement is merely over whether the Fulbright fellow in question was himself 100% correct. Since I don't live in a black/white world where people are either villains or heroes (life is more complicated), I'm only suggesting that the Fubrighter himself made some bad decisions (though he's clearly not in as much of the "wrong" as the embassy official).
Hardly the kind of small disagreement that merits vitriol.
Listen, I am no fan of Evo and even less of Choquehuanca, Quintana and the other hardliners of his entourage who are constantly trying to pick fights with the US.
Nevertheless, I find the behavior of the US embassy simply abhorrent and I am grateful to Van Schaick for having exposed it. Going public was the right thing to do, morally and politically. Just complaining to the DOS would have had - perhaps - the effect of removing the official in question, but the public - you and me - would have never found out what is going on there.
I agree that this will most certainly give ammunition to the above-mentioned hardliners and confirm the paranoia of many in Bolivia, but the alternative is to let this behavior continue unchallenged, which is worst for the bilateral relations in the long run.
Why didn't he come out already in November? I suggest a very simple explanation: Any sensible human being needs time to ponder the consequences of such an action. Frankly, I find your hinting that there might be some sort of sinister political calculation (corroborated by that Che hat) behind the wait totally gratuitous.
Posted by
Jorge
February 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Thanks for this post.
You wrote: "from my knowledge of the Fulbright organization, a letter to the head office would’ve likely produced the same desired effect: dismissal of the embassy official in question"
Unfortunately that's not true in this case. According to the ABC report, the same embassy official had been the subject of a complaint by the Peace Corps' Doreen Salazar last summer for doing the same thing. Not only was he not dismissed, but he didn't change his behavior.
Yes, the embassy official has had problems; he's now been "recalled" (which is sort of liked "fired"). I didn't suggest that a letter to the embassy would've necessarily worked, but a letter to the Fulbright office in New York (which is not the same as writing a letter to the embassy) may have had the desired effect.
Look. I appreciate that what van Shaick did was "correct" and perhaps even noble. I don't think that means I can't question his motives or the unintended consequences of his actions. And, yes, I do think that it seems like he did what he did for political reasons of his own. Of course, people are expected (and perhaps should) be true to their convictions. But I'm also allowed to question them. And I'm of the opinion (in the tradition of skeptics like Camus) that doing the right thing for less than purely noble reasons can (and should) be critically discussed.
For what it’s worth, here’s an update on the Fulbright scandal (via Bolivia Libre in a comment at MABB) …
It seems (according to embassy officials) that van Shaick wasn’t asked to spy in Bolivia, per se. But rather he was warned that many Venezuelan & Cuban aid workers in Bolivia may actually be spies. He was asked to be wary of this, and then to report any suspicious activity. Clearly, the latter part of that request crosses the line. But it seems the story was perhaps a bit more nuanced.
Of course, this could all be US government spin. And, again, it seems clear (from previous statements van Shaick and the ABC reporter had made) that they did have an ideological axe to grind. So it seems both the embassy AND van Shaick were playing politics.
PS. For what it's worth, Bolivia Libre is a clearly anti-Evo blogger. So he has an ideological axe to grind, too, of course.
Operatives? Does that include Cuban doctors and PCVs? Missionaries, CARE? Anyone funded by Soros? National Endowment for Democracy?
Venezuelans do have a better record in terms of meddling and actual coups than US.
Posted by
Anonymous
February 14, 2008 4:10 PM
If you take a century-long view, yes, Venezuela has a (much) better track record than the US. But I'm more worried about recent developments, frankly. I, too, find it interesting that one's stance on whether international operatives are good/bad depends on which operatives & how they stack up to one's own ideological convictions (e.g. Chavistas hate US operatives; neocons hate Venezuelan operatives; neither is critical of its own).
A funny post by a Peace Corps Volunteer on the same guy at the embassy who asked Fulbright Scholars to spy. He'd also asked the PC Volunteers in at least this case.
"I don’t think anyone took him seriously, because in the same talk he recommended we get clubs for our cars (our cars?) and advised us not to travel in micros (we had extensive training on how to do just that and were directly told by Peace Corps on several occasions to take micros)."
