U.S. Department of State

So Exercising's suspicion that there is discrimination against those with Chinese ancestry is incorrect, but it is certainly correct that the security clearance should cover this kind of thing. Country denial is just to cover the tracks of those hiring in case someone does turn traitor; they can say that they disqualified every person whom they thought might possibly do so with disqualifications on several levels, i.e., security clearance, final review and - when all else fails - with a simple denial of country authorization. Only fuzzy guidelines for this, but if they did not deny country authorization to anyone and there was a problem later, they might get some heat.

Or maybe they just pick out someone who is not an ABC or with a Chinese spouse once in a while and disqualify that person for some nonsensical reason (as happened to one of the contributors above), so there can be no claim of discrimination. It does seem like more people with ties to China are being denied authorization to work in the country, even though they passed all tests and have the qualifications.

Check out this article: http://the-diplomat.com/2011/09/19/chinas-growing-spy-threat/

Maybe, just maybe, this kind of thing is why Diplomatic Security is cautious about granting country authorization for China.

Thanks for posting the article. I've read something similar before. Basically it's said that Chinese intelligence prefers breadth (collecting limited data from countless assets), whereas Western intelligence is characterized by depth (limited number of handlers but all highly trained and specialized going after highly-knowledgeable assets in limited numbers).

Then again, doesn't State conduct a polygraph at the end of the security clearance process to wash out such agents?

To be fair, I never said there was discrimination only against those with Chinese ancestry :-) I stated people with the language skills required of CA positions were more likely to be of the ancestry of said nations. This may also include Brazilian or Latin American candidates as well (as described in some of the forums).

In either case, I agree that this whole process of Country Authorization is totally opaque and I wish DOS would provide a better description or answer to what it entails. Either that or make the initial screening before OAs more difficult and then pay for potential candidates to travel to DC to interview. This may seem like it cost more upfront, but you can bet paying for DOS security to do all those background checks is not cheap either.

I'm be wary of playing the race card. Rather, the catch 22 that needs resolving: How do you find a person that has the language skills required to perform this high level position, without that person ever having contact with the country in question? Does the Department of State grow them in a lab somewhere?

This is a very new program and the agent I met was somewhat surprised that this position required a Top Secret clearance. China I can almost understand, but do we see Brazil as a growing threat? Is the danger that we let slip the best way to get a tourist visa so they can slip in and spend their ever-strengthening Reais at Florida outlet malls?

I think what CA applicants really want is a very clear DISCLAIMER that says many qualified applicants are rejected due to country authorization, and then lists several red flags that could substantially affect authorization.

I'm sure the DOS knows quite well that many applicants are rejected country authorization due to having close family ties to a country. Stating it clearly would allow applicants to at least more accurately weigh the pros, cons, and risk factors that will affect them.

I'm sure that many applicants with qualified Chinese have resided in China for some time, and would most have likely developed friendships in China (we hope). Being honest and upfront about the risk factors would have at least allowed some of the candidates to know if they should call it quits early.

We hear your concerns, but we are, unfortunately, unable to provide you a one-size fits-all set of criteria. Every case is different, and many candidates with close friends and relatives do receive country-specific authorization.

The following language includes the “disclaimer” spelled out in the Vacancy Announcement, and it provides some of the context:

As the CALNA Vacancy Announcements indicate, in addition to a top-secret security clearance, candidates must obtain and maintain “a country-specific authorization to serve.”

There are a number of reasons why a candidate might not obtain that authorization, but country-specific authorization is most often denied because the candidate has close family, personal or professional ties in the country that could result in pressure being placed upon the candidate or the candidate’s family. The finding is in no way a reflection of a failing on the part of the candidate; it is, rather, a reflection of realities in some parts of the world. It is not a denial of security clearance.

There are a number of Foreign Service Officers who are not authorized to serve in countries where they have relatives and close friends. With generalists or most specialists, this lack of authorization means that the candidate may not work in that specific country, but is free to be assigned anywhere else on the globe. Unfortunately, for the Consular Adjudicator positions in China and Brazil, the assignments are designated for a single country. Therefore, a finding that a candidate is not authorized to serve in that country essentially ends that candidacy.

Candidates who do not obtain a country-specific authorization would be welcome to apply for other Foreign Service positions, as it’s a very big world out there, with lots of places to serve.

So, say Chinese is my foreign language that I'm good at and I love and is of most benefit to the DOS, but through this CA LNA Application process I'm denied country authorization. Should i assume that if I were to apply for FSO and make it, China would be on the list of places I cannot be stationed? I mean, since close ties come and go, and clearances need to be updated... (and the powers that make the decisions change) Do some people get the authorization back again after a certain amount of time?

Would you or could you say that the powers that be deny country authorization a little more frequently for CA LNA than for FSOs that have come the traditional route?

But State certainly uses its imagination for disqualifying others who have no contacts (friends or relative) in the country!

These examples might be more suited to Brazil, apply to all:

The process can be compared to what happened to Ukraine in the European Soccer Championships last week: Ukraine scored a goal, but the referees didn't see it, and consequently Ukraine was eliminated from the competition.

Or better yet:

A goal was scored, but the referees decided that since the opposing team is so tricky, the person scoring the goal might be offside next time, so better to disallow the goal now.