CIAO DATE: 04/05

How Terrorism Affects American Diplomacy

Thomas O. Melia

March 2004

Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
Georgetown University

 

Abstract

Interviews with several dozen senior American diplomats-including ambassadors and others currently serving abroad-indicate that the daily conduct of U.S. diplomacy has recently been altered in significant ways by

the elevated threat of terrorism against American interests made manifest on September 11, 2001;
the worldwide War on Terror declared by President George W. Bush in consequence; and
the prosecution of the war in Iraq, on which diplomats are as divided as other Americans regarding whether it is or is not part of the global War on Terror.

The principal findings include the following:

“Force protection” is the prime directive, everywhere. Terror-related changes in the professional and personal lives of diplomats apply in many respects to diplomats serving in Western Europe, Latin America, East Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa as well as to those living and working in the Middle East and South Asia. No matter where a U.S. diplomat is posted nowadays, he or she must be much more attuned than previously to issues of personal security and will be evaluated by superiors on adherence to personal and embassy security regimes. “Force protection” has become the prime directive for ambassadors, and other senior officials in the Department of State, and trumps traditional diplomatic or bureaucratic considerations.

Recruitment and retention challenges are exacerbated, as stresses on families, in particular, are heightened. While the terrorist threat posed by al-Queda and others to official American personnel abroad is a tangible, everyday issue for U.S. diplomats, they also tend-with some conspicuous exceptions-to downplay the degree to which the heightened threat affects their own personal lives and career paths. Many seem to have long since accepted the risks associated with the career they have chosen and tend to see the events of 9/11 more as an escalation of a long-standing threat than as the world-altering phenomenon that many others perceive it to have been.

Serving ambassadors speak of the high morale at their missions, in part due to the elevated calling they perceive in waging the War on Terror, though not everyone concurs that it is really the case that “the troops” are so pumped up about the opportunities thus presented. Some ambassadors who recently returned to Washington, and other senior managers in the State Department in Washington, refer to the growing “recruitment and retention” issues arising-not only from the heightened security threat but also from the “force protection” measures taken to address it, such as ordered departures and the designation of more posts as “unaccompanied”. Upon exploration, it appears that while the department has more applicants than ever at the entry level, there are problems associated with certain posts, particularly for Foreign Service officers (FSOs) with families, that exacerbate staffing problems at certain hard-to-fill posts that are also now on the front lines of American interests, in South Asia and the Middle East.

Security measures do not hinder diplomatic outreach. The enhancement of security measures at embassies and consulates (long under way but accelerated since 9/11) appears to many observers, including even retired diplomats, to intrude on the ability of FSOs to fulfill their principal function of establishing and maintaining personal relationships with key actors in the host country. The architectural modifications that have been made at most facilities trouble many diplomats-especially those dedicated to public diplomacy-who decry the practical and symbolic barriers that have been erected between American diplomats and the people they are sent abroad to engage. Yet currently serving diplomats at various levels insist this has not actually been a problem, noting they are more likely than previously to meet contacts outside the embassy or to make other minor logistical adjustments to sustain normal diplomatic contact.

New priorities are clear, and some issues fall by the wayside. Whatever their “cone” or specialty, American diplomats tend to be engaged with host governments and publics on a raft of terrorism-related issues that have assumed new or greater significance since 9/11. These include seeking cooperation on tracking movements of money, cargo, and people across borders and for U.S. initiatives in multilateral forums, as well as on arrangements of new traffic patterns, entry procedures, and construction at U.S. facilities to enhance site security. Notwithstanding the protestations of ambassadors, in particular, that the greater attention paid to the newly elevated priorities does not come at the expense of focus on other vital issues, other diplomats (including deputy chiefs of mission (DCMs) and principal officers at secondary posts) acknowledge that some other key policy priorities have been substantially downgraded. The areas most frequently cited are economic reporting and commercial advocacy, and domestic political reporting not directly related to terrorism or the Iraq war.

Democracy and human rights receive greater, and lesser, attention. The relative priority now paid to issues of democracy promotion and human rights varies widely, as U.S. counterterrorism interests lead to convergence with some otherwise unsavory governments. Whether the new focus on terrorism leads to greater attention to democracy and human rights seems to depend, to some extent, on geography. In the Middle East, the combined effect of the War on Terror and the Iraq war has elevated the matter of democracy and civil liberties in the minds of senior diplomats in the region; ambassadors in the Arab world say unprompted that democracy promotion is a critical aspect of their counterterrorism programs. Further afield, the impact seems to have had the opposite effect, as efforts to enlist cooperation of governments in counterterrorism efforts lead to a lessening of the pressure on those governments for political and economic reform.

Complaints about visas are now everybody’s business. Virtually all those interviewed agree that the aspect of embassy operations most dramatically affected throughout the world is the consular function, as new U.S. visa procedures have adversely affected (or at least greatly complicated) political relationships, trade and tourism, and such staples of public diplomacy as student, scholarly, and cultural exchanges. In consequence, visa and immigration issues now intrude to a greater extent than previously on almost every other aspect of embassy operations.

New pecking order at embassies is clear to all. The arrival or expansion of personnel from various security-related agencies, along with the shift in policy priorities for many missions, has led to a recasting of the internal mission dynamics. Ambassadors and other senior officials now devote greater time and attention to terrorism- related issues and consequently less to other aspects of the mission.

Diplomats divided about whether Iraq action helps or hurts War on Terror. U.S. diplomats are divided about whether the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq was actually consistent with worldwide prosecution of the War on Terror that President Bush has declared. As the Iraq issue became the overriding policy priority for U.S diplomacy in late 2002 and into 2003 (when the interviews were conducted), diplomats were often obliged to set aside other tasks, including those related to counterterrorism, in order to enlist military allies or diminish political opposition among governments or publics worldwide. Some FSOs are also concerned that the alienation of some governments by the administration’s approach to the Iraq war may have weakened international cooperation in the larger antiterrorist effort.

A caveat: other things are happening, too

A variety of things are affecting the quality of life for America’s diplomats during this same period-some enhancing morale and professionalism and others complicating the lives of diplomats. The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative championed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, for instance, is frequently mentioned and is much appreciated by diplomats at all levels. The principal focus of this inquiry, however, has been the global War on Terror that the Bush administration has framed as its over-arching strategic priority and the ways in which this war may specifically affect the conduct of diplomacy.

Full Text (PDF Format, 24 pages, 152.5 KB)