The Foreign Service Journal, December 2012

30 DECEMBER 2012 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL standard New Embassy Com- pound, with its abandonment of city centers and our historic embassies there. What most worried me was how the isolation and separation embodied in these tactical choices impedes our ability to truly understand host countries—leading, for instance, to the deep surprise of the Arab revolutions. My assessment was that this approach to security can run counter to our core values of openness and democracy. Honoring Ambassador Stevens’ Memory The Sept. 11 Benghazi tragedy, as well as the other events that week, gave me real pause. Although I did not know all four men who died there, I’d had the privilege of engaging with Ambassa- dor Chris Stevens on aspects of our post-Qaddafi policy for Libya, and I very much want to honor their memories. While wrestling with the decision as to whether I should still write this article after this tragedy, I had some very painful conversations with friends and colleagues about these events. Ultimately, I decided that this is a critical time for our profes- sion to continue to pursue the debate about how to maintain our tradition of open diplomacy—not just in revolutionary contexts, but in every country around the world. I acknowledge that I am not a security expert, so I worked from a set of first principles as I thought about the delicate bal- ance between security and openness, and between prudence and ineffectiveness. First, the United States is unique because it is both a country with interests that span the globe and an idea with universal aspirations. We are still the most powerful nation at this point in history, and our ideals of democracy and freedom are the due of every human being, from Pittsburgh to Pyongyang. Second, I believe that America is on the right side of history, and it is our mission as Foreign Service officers to both advance our interests and spread our values. We carry a heavy responsibil- ity to serve the American people. Third, we need to pursue a multifaceted approach to security, one that recognizes that all protective measures have costs and benefits, and that none are infallible or universally applicable. As we just saw in Libya, today we face a terrible threat to our mission as diplomats. Criminals seek to kill our colleagues to effect political change in their own societies and around the world. In a handful of coun- tries, politicians have been willing to set up America as a hated strawman to score cheap political points. The proper response to such crimes and hate is for peaceful people to come together; after all, there are more of us than there are of them. Conversely, forcing us to keep our embassies, consulates and missions under a permanent state of siege and isolated from host societies is the explicit goal of many terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida and Hezbollah. In her Oct. 17 piece in the Washington Post discussing the official U.S. reaction to the tragedy in Benghazi, Pulitzer Prize- winner Anne Applebaum wrote: “To my mind, there is only one truly disturbing element of this discussion: the underlying assumptions—made by almost everyone participating in the argument—that no American diplomats should ever be exposed to any risk whatsoever, and that it is always better to have too much security than too little.” A Terrible Dilemma The reality that there are still people who want to attack Amer- ican targets overseas confronts those whose job it is to keep us safe with a terrible dilemma. They cannot harden every conceiv- able target, or restrict movement to ever-shrinking permissive areas. And they have repeatedly seen that an individual or group with sufficient opportunity, dedication and willingness to die for their cause can succeed in killing and injuring our colleagues. At the same time, as internal security measures mount, they reduce our ability to engage the people of our host countries, sending them a clear message that America distrusts and fears them. Whenever we abandon city centers and close our cultural centers, we lose vital links and means of influence. This is not the message the fearless champion of justice and freedom should be sending to the world, especially in the capitals of our closest allies in Ottawa and London, Berlin and Tokyo. We should not build bunkers in such countries. It is important that the Foreign Service as a whole honestly and frankly discuss and assess the benefits and costs of these difficult decisions. Whatever security measures we take must be rational, effective and sustainable. As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in October: “We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security. Our peo- ple cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs. But it is our solemn Our embassies and cultural centers have long been not only symbols of our values but physical incubators of those values.