The Foreign Service Journal, February 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | FEBRUARY 2013 17 he December Foreign Service Journal focused on a timely subject: embassy security and the ongoing efforts to modify the New Embassy Compound concept. Often labeled “fortress embassies” by detractors, NECs are seen as projecting an image of America as heavy-handed and imperialistic. Observers bemoan their tall walls and say the demeanor of NEC guards limits openness and interaction. Yet U.S. diplomacy continues to func- tion in these settings. Foreign Service personnel host visitors, interact with locals outside the walls, and provide citizen services, all despite the allegedly inacces- sible nature of these facilities. That record suggests that the actual appearance of these buildings is at most a minor prob- lem for residents of these countries, and one adequately addressed by existing and planned Department of State policies. It also indicates that identifying the true sources of hostility against our diplo- matic missions is more complex than the current debate suggests. The Importance of Image For many U.S. diplomats, the greatest fear while working overseas is not anti- American violence, but the possibility that their embassy or consulate might project The Value of Fortress Embassies BY N I CK P I ETROWI CZ T Nick Pietrowicz, a State Department Diplomatic Security Special Agent since 2002, is the Regional Security Officer in N’Djamena, Chad. He served previously as RSO in Chisinau (2008-2011), and as assistant RSO in Kabul (2006-2007) and Port-au-Prince (2003-2005). He was a State Department representative on the AFSA Governing Board from 2007 to 2008. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of State or the U.S. government. SPEAKING OUT the wrong image to local residents. It is true that our diplomatic missions can appear daunting. The requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and CounterterrorismAct of 1999 establish a clear perimeter between the embassy and the world outside. In addition, many posts have worked with host governments to put in place protocols restricting photography near embassies. As a result, some claim that NECs look more like sterile military outposts than inviting diplomatic facilities. I believe most of this anxiety comes from the idea that, despite our best diplomatic efforts, a fortress embassy will indicate to host-country nationals that America is intimidating. Some of this concern may also stem from the comments of third-country diplomats, a population well-versed in the subject of embassy design. But for a nation as large and important as our own, the appearance of an embassy is hardly the only factor to consider when interacting with other diplomats. When local officials raise complaints about fortress embassies, we do have an obligation to listen. After all, host gov- ernments are the ultimate protectors of diplomatic facilities. But in my experience, most local officials would prefer to work with a secure embassy over one which is open and unintimidating, but vulner- able. Having a U.S. embassy or consulate attacked is a disaster for the host country. Leaving aside the ramifications for bilat- eral relations, local residents are statisti- cally far more likely to be killed or injured in such an attack than diplomats. For all these reasons, an intimidating but safe building might generate gossip in local diplomatic circles, but little discus- sion among the host-country population. Indeed, I haven’t encountered many people outside Foreign Service ranks who actually worry about the way our embas- sies and consulates look. That may be because most impressions of the United States and its citizens still Exterior view of Rocca Scaligera, a fortress in Sirmione, Italy. © iStockphoto/GoranStimac