The Foreign Service Journal, May 2013

8 MAY 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL LETTERS Save the Legation The mail gets to us only slowly here in Morocco, so I am only now able to com- ment on the excellent December 2012 article by Jane Loeffler, “Beyond the For- tress Embassy.” As the director for nearly three years now of the Tangier American Legation Institute for Moroc- can Studies, I have come to appreciate what Ambassador Barbara Bodine, quoted in the article, calls “embassies inte- grated with their surroundings and culture.” You can’t get more integrated than the American legation, which is not only nestled in the Medina (“Old City”), but bestrides “America Street” and is built over it. That was the American way of diplomacy in Morocco from the 1790s to the early 1960s. The legation is the only U.S. National Historic Landmark located abroad, by virtue of its status as the first American diplomatic property, a gift of the sultan of Morocco in 1821. The October 1932 issue of The Foreign Service Journal carried a story about the legation’s brand-new “Moorish Pavilion” annex, which author Honor Bigelow described as “one of the most notewor- thy” American diplomatic buildings of the era. Photos of it grace publica- tions the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations has issued highlighting the Secretary of State’s Register of Cultur- ally Significant Properties and the new public-private partnership, the Fund to Conserve United States Diplomatic Trea- sures Abroad. It is still a very photogenic building— until you look closely. More than 80 years after Congress appropriated $22,000 to build the pavilion, this diplomatic trea- sure is at risk. Major structural fissures, water damage from leaking roofs, rotting wood, etc., threaten what is a repository of the best that artisans from across the Maghreb could produce—mashrabi- yya screens on the windows, intricately painted wooden ceilings, zellij floor tiles. As a living embodiment of citizen public diplomacy, the legation is also a symbol of America’s longstand- ing engagement with the Arab, African and Muslim worlds. Sultan Sidi Abderrahman recognized “the Americans” as Moroccan partners in December 1777, while George Washington was still hunker- ing down in Valley Forge. OBO, the Fund to Con- serve U.S. Diplomatic Treasures Abroad and historic preservationists would do well to band together to “Save the Legation Pavilion.” What could be more important than to save this example of America’s diplomatic heritage—from a time when “fortress embassy” meant a solid oak door and a deadbolt lock—in such a crucial region of the world? Sultan Moulay Suleiman, our benefactor in 1821, would expect nothing less of the United States. Gerald Loftus FSO, retired Tangier, Morocco Balancing Access and Security In his February Speaking Out column, “The Value of Fortress Embassies,” Nick Pietrowicz contends that even heavily fortified facilities do not prevent diplo- mats from performing the traditional practices of their trade. Rather, it is post security policies that dictate when and how personnel may make sorties beyond fortress walls. That assessment is basically accurate. Still, there can be adverse consequences when the location for an embassy or con- sulate is selected primarily on the basis of security standards. To find enough open land to pro- vide the required 100-foot setbacks, the bureaus of Overseas Buildings Opera- tions and Diplomatic Security have had to move many embassies and consul- ates farther and farther from convenient locations in or near the cities they serve. Decades ago, for instance, I narrowly foiled a plan to move Consulate General Montreal miles west to a location on the Trans-Canada Highway, which was served by no public transport of any sort. Not only would this have made it very difficult for the public to come to our office, but it would also hurt our efforts to recruit and retain good local staff. It would also increase travel time for officers to call on contacts, with a con- sequent increase in exposure to the very security risks that the fortress was built to protect them from. Fortunately, that particular relocation never happened. But my initial objec- tions to this and other impossible sites were always rebuffed with a single word: irrelevant. Decades ago we went through another security “enhancement” that was a prime example of the DS tail wag- ging the embassy dog. I lost that battle, which left consular officers separated from their customers by bulletproof glass. That barrier obscures vision and sound, destroying the eyeball-to-eyeball scrutiny needed to make the best decisions. Such a safeguard hardly seemed nec- essary since all visitors to the office have always been screened for weapons at the door. Moreover, a wide interview counter and a closable window already protected the consular officer from a casual fist or a lunge across the counter. Visa officers around the world face