The Foreign Service Journal, February 2013

20 FEBRUARY 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Blaming the Messenger Arguing that secure embassies sig- nificantly harm the image of the United States implies that security needs originate in security measures, not the other way around. According to this line of reason- ing, if we lessen countermeasures, local perceptions of the United States would improve and make our diplomatic mis- sions safer. If only it were that easy! After all, what traditionally has engen- dered more anger toward U.S. diplomats: the way our buildings look, or the ideas promoted from within? Anti-American sentiment is grounded in complaints far broader and more complex than how many cameras hang from the roof of a chancery. The audiences most disturbed by secure embassies—foreign diplomats and host-government officials—are at the bottom of the list of potential attackers. Simply put, the individuals seeking to do us harm are not violent because of the appearance of our buildings. They are displeased with the activities, or the mere presence, of the United States in their respective countries or the world. This is not to suggest our diplomats overseas should cease their vocal defense of our foreign policy. But we should recog- nize that such work can encourage hostil- ity and that such threats must be met with commensurate security countermeasures. Speaking Loudly Requires Big Embassies The U.S. presence overseas has been steadily growing since the 9/11 attacks, as have the consequences. Much of this spend- ing has gone to programs operated by the Pentagon or the intelligence community, but diplomatic and development efforts have expanded in the past decade, as well. If we are going to be more engaged around the world, we must appreciate that not everyone will welcome our presence, and respond by protecting our personnel, facilities and information appropriately. In that regard, it will not suffice to increase security only in conflict zones and hot spots. I believe that far too many of our embassies and consulates all over the world lack effective protection. Transnational terrorists, perpetrators of the most serious attacks against embas- sies in recent years, are unconcerned about which Department of State bureau received more funding in the past year. Since they view our personnel as sym- bols of our foreign policy as a whole, our embassies everywhere are at risk. Returning to a more conventional style of diplomacy and decreasing our activities around the world would lessen that risk. Absent that change, we must assume all of our facilities are targets. EPIC Progress We must keep our embassies safe—but we can try to do so in style. Responding to criticism that secure embassies appear intimidating, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is working with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to soften the appearance of New Embassy Com- pounds. In keeping with the Department of State’s Design Excellence goals, OBO and DS are researching ways to improve the costs, aesthetics and sustainability of embassies, without compromising secu- rity. These changes will be most notice- able not to U.S. diplomats, but to observ- ers on the street. Specifically, the two bureaus have collaborated to develop the Embassy Perimeter Improvement Concept to keep the outside of our facilities secure while projecting a neutral, even pleas- ing appearance. Solid masonry walls are being replaced with secure fences, while the harsh metal and concrete of bollard systems are being balanced with colorful art and cleverly landscaped trenches. In many locations, water is substituting for the blank openness of asphalt, which used to make up the setback require- ment between public areas and the chancery. And where possible, security countermeasures are incorporating green elements, making our missions more sustainable. As long as our nation’s overseas involvement goes beyond traditional diplomacy, we can expect our embassies around the world to remain tempting targets. In my view, the Design Excellence initiative appropriately addresses what are often exaggerated complaints about the appearance and accessibility of U.S. diplomatic facilities. Such improvements should assuage most critics of so-called fortress embas- sies. Those who are not mollified can take comfort that most people I meet are unconcerned about the appearance of U.S. embassies, and that potential attack- ers who might be provoked, whatever the reason, will be deterred by appropriate security measures. n Those seeking to do us harm are not violent because of the appearance of our facilities, however intimidating.