Last week the United States Ambassador to Libya was killed in Benghazi, Libya. His death, along with the death of another foreign service officer and two other Americans, was apparently linked to a YouTube video deemed blasphemous. Even now, more than a week after the deaths, there a number of unanswered questions about what actually happened and who is responsible.
What has become clear in the days immediately after the attack are the voices calling for a pull back in U.S. diplomatic resources. This article, in the Washington Post, quotes an unnamed administration source as saying that the number of civilians deployed overseas in support of administration outreach needed to be reduced. I believe that this is precisely the wrong reaction.
The United States has been reducing its overseas outreach even as the world has become more globalized. Of even greater concern, the United States has adopted a bunker mentality for its diplomats. Following the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, the U.S. implemented new designs for its embassies and consulates. The new design focused on security as the paramount concern.
Combined with new, bunker designs for its diplomatic facilities, foreign service officers increasingly labour under onerous security procedures that hamper and often prevent them from having interaction with the citizens of the countries in which they are serving. Finally, the duty rotation schedules for foreign service officers results in officers remaining in any one country for a shorter period of time. This necessarily results in reduced familiarity with the language and culture of the host country and fewer long-term contacts and friendships with people in the host country.
I fear that the killing of Ambassador Stevens will only exacerbate the United States pullback. Fewer people will be posted overseas, under tighter security restriction in increasingly isolated diplomatic compounds. I believe that the long-term consequences of such a shift will have much worse ramifications than the killing itself.
The United States must continue to present itself to the world through its diplomatic outreach. If the world sees more militarized compounds and fewer Americans, what message does that send about the United States' interest in the host country? It is certainly not a message of friendship or partnership. At worst, it may reinforce the impression of an occupying, imperial power. At a time when the United States is dealing with the return to a multi-polar world order, I believe that an image of a militarized and scared superpower is the wrong image to project to the rest of the world. The United States becomes a target to be driven out and not a friend to call upon in an hour of need.
If the United States wants to advance its economic and geopolitical interests it must do so in partnership with others. To do so, it must build long-term relationships with other countries based upon trust, shared values and mutual interest. I firmly believe that such relationships can only be built with sustained diplomatic outreach. To do such outreach effectively, the United States cannot retreat behind walls and further curtail its interactions with others. Yes, sending out more civilians to foreign countries and easing restrictions on security puts American diplomats at great risk. Most likely, it will result in more tragedies like what happened in Benghazi. Yet the risk is necessary.
The United States has played a critical role in expanding peace and security throughout the world. However, the world remains a dangerous place. A retreat from the world will make it a more dangerous place and not less dangerous. Sooner or later, that danger will show up on our doorstep - likely with far more dire consequences than if we had confronted early before it had a chance to fester. The United States should mourn its loss and redouble the outreach efforts that Ambassador Stevens represented. Our security and prosperity depend on it.
