The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

The second reason why the State Department has been pushed into the corner it is now in is because the administration has assumed a unilateral stance and Congress has identified speed and cost as its top priorities. So State finds itself evaluating new embassy projects for their efficiency, not for what they may say about us as a country. A Friendly and Forward- Looking Presence It was not long ago that the U.S. foreign building program was celebrated as an apt expression of American democracy. This was especial- ly evident, for example, at the end of World War II in Germany, where the United States embarked on a large-scale postwar building program that featured information centers, libraries and an array of consulates across the country to maximize outreach to the German public. Instead of a single imposing structure designed to proclaim U.S. dominance, there were numerous inviting buildings whose mission was to “sell” democra- cy and to make America available and attractive to skeptics and former enemies. The architecture was modern, to emphasize a break with the past and embody the transparency embedded in our constitu- tional system of government. Congress eagerly funded the pro- gram to counter the Soviet infor- mation program (described by us as “propaganda”) and to provide visible alternatives to the tradi- tionally designed Soviet facilities known as “Houses of Culture.” By all accounts the postwar U.S. German program succeeded in its goals. It was but a part of a larger program that built chanceries in key capitals and consulates in many other important cities around the world and created a high-profile U.S. presence recognized at the time as friendly and forward-looking. In fact, architects who designed those buildings were specifically instructed by the State Department’s Office of Foreign Buildings Operations to devise designs that showed mutual respect and created goodwill for the United States. Indian Prime Minister Nehru was one who compli- mented the new embassy in New Delhi (designed by Edward Durell Stone and completed in 1959) for those very achievements at a time when his praise had diplo- matic significance. The heyday of the building program coincided with the height of the Cold War, when the United States want- ed to amplify its foreign presence to check Soviet expan- sion. The department’s Office of Foreign Buildings Operations built dozens of new embassies with spaces and programs that reflected the idealistic mood of that era. Prominent and soon-to-be-prominent architects won prized commissions from FBO and created signa- ture structures that won them professional acclaim. Although FBO managed a portfolio of remarkable land- mark buildings of great historical significance, it was easy to overlook the architecture from here because the sites were so distant and unfamiliar, there was so little public awareness of the mission of the Foreign Service and so little understanding of diplomatic practice. Funding for the program was unpredictable after postwar debts and counterpart funds that originally financed it disappeared. When Congress was asked in the early 1960s to pick up the whole tab for the program, members began to bicker over mundane matters and ignored pressing needs. Projects were suspended or F O C U S S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 45 There were numerous inviting buildings whose mission was to “sell” democracy and to make America available and attractive to skeptics and former enemies. Jane C. Loeffler, Ph.D., is an architectural historian who has written extensively on issues related to the security and design of U.S. embassies. Her book, The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies (1998) is a his- tory of the U.S. foreign building program. For the book and her contributions to international affairs, the U.S. Department of State awarded her its Distinguished Public Service Award in 1998. Loeffler is a consultant to the Office of the Historian at the State Department and a visiting associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. A contributing author to Building Diplomacy (2004) and Embassy Resi- dences in Washington, D.C. (2003), she writes articles on public buildings and public policy. She also serves on the Architect of the Capitol’s expert advisory panel reviewing the new proposed master plan for the U.S. Capitol complex.