So the project will end March 1.
This was the outcome of a pretty intense negotiation process, which ate most of the past week. There were funding issues, there were exchange rate issues, there was this and that. It could have been better and it could have been worse. (There was another project that was on a fixed price contract -- paid in US dollars -- with tangible deliverables, i.e. construction stuff. Those guys are in much more pain than we are.) If we're not delighted with the outcome, neither are we bitter; this is very much the nature of the business.
So what happens next?
We don't know.
On the project side, there won't be any follow-on from USAID in the near future, because USAID can't/won't fund any new projects until at least next summer. So, we have to take that into account, and do what we can before our local counterparts are left to themselves.
On the personal side, well, we leave Armenia. We go where the work is, after all, and Armenia is about to go through a fallow patch.
We don't know where we're going next. Two things are in the air at the moment: a Middle Eastern country, and a country with really big problems. (So big that Claudia and the boys wouldn't be able to come with me.) It could be either, or something else entirely.
We probably won't know until near the end. Which means we'll have to sort of... levitate, keeping various contingency plans ready. Will Claude and the boys go to Germany for a while, or get ready to go straight to our next location? When will they leave? How should they pack? What about school? We don't know, we don't know, but we'll have to plan as best we can anyway. Again, it's the nature of the business.
(One detail: ground shipment from Armenia to anywhere -- Germany, Egypt, wherever -- takes four to six weeks. Your ground shipment is your move; it includes all your household goods, clothing, furniture, kid's toys, what have you. So, for four to six weeks you have to camp... live out of suitcases, basically. So do we camp in Armenia or somewhere else? Answer unclear, ask this question again later.)
On the positive side, we have a date, and some time to think about it and at least try to plan. Our last move, we didn't know it was happening until less than 60 days before. The move before that, it was more like two weeks.
Anyway: that's what I've been up to for the last week. As I said, normal blogging may return in a bit.
I'll keep my fingers crossed for you guys.
Posted by: kit | December 09, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Good luck, wherever you end up.
Posted by: King-Walters | December 09, 2007 at 06:59 PM
"Two things are in the air at the moment: a Middle Eastern country, and a country with really big problems. (So big that Claudia and the boys wouldn't be able to come with me.)"
Ok, _that_ sucks. My sympathies.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | December 10, 2007 at 06:29 AM
OOh, Egypt wouldn't be terrible--the exchange rate is good, Cairo has great international schools, and access to most commodities plus high speed internet. Downside is that consumer electronics have a crazy import tax on them, such that a Taiwan made portable CD player is about $40 US. And Cairo has a nasty pollution thing....
I'd be leery, if I were you, of getting stuck in Jordan, for example, just given where it is. The Gulf is exceedingly tacky, and only really fun in short bursts. While Lebanon I love, but it's just not safe
Posted by: Luke | December 10, 2007 at 03:44 PM
"and a country with really big problems. (So big that Claudia and the boys wouldn't be able to come with me.)"
OK, are we talking Iraq? Afghanistan? Kongo-Kinshasa?
Right now I don't envy you. But... as you point out, the situation is the situation and I guess this is what comes with the expat lifestyle.
Posted by: Oskar | December 10, 2007 at 04:46 PM
I know that BP has an office in Iraq; like Haliburton, I laughed, and told them politely no.
My impression talking to both was that they weren't sending families, or married people. They were very very interested in singles.
Going into the Arab world might be marginally worse on paper, and much worse in fact if it's Jordan, Saudi, Bahrain, or the West Bank. Lebanon, of course, is too unstable to work in.
The rest is sort of grotty bog-standard tropicana third worldism. Tunisia would be a step up from Armenia, as would Morocco. I don't think anyone's going to, say, Libya.
Posted by: Luke | December 11, 2007 at 09:56 AM
There's always Bethesda... :-)
So says the senior one.
Posted by: Natalie | December 13, 2007 at 04:27 AM
"I know that BP has an office in Iraq; like Haliburton, I laughed, and told them politely no.
My impression talking to both was that they weren't sending families, or married people. They were very very interested in singles."
It's a bit more complicated that that. From 2004-2005 the BE Director in Baghdad was not only married, his wife was there in the compound too--although in fairness it should be added that she was also on staff, in the banking sector. That being said, children would be absolutely out of the question, unless they were opening a satellite office in Erbil or Sulaymaniyah, and even then I'd think very long and hard about it.
Posted by: Colin Alberts | December 13, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Luke, why the hate for Jordan? I spent a couple of weeks there six months ago, and it seemed pleasant enough.
Colin, Iraq and Afghanistan are still "unaccompanied" posts, meaning no family. The arrangement you describe -- husband and wife both working -- is not unheard of; sometimes both spouses are perfectly competent, sometimes not.
Still up in the air here anyways.
Doug M.
Posted by: claudia | December 14, 2007 at 04:24 AM
"I know that BP has an office in Iraq; like Haliburton, I laughed, and told them politely no."
What'd the pay look like? I'm big on risk/reward. :^)
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero | December 14, 2007 at 05:42 AM