Vulnerability and weakness of U.S. embassies overseas

Vulnerability and weakness of the U.S. Embassies in oversea

The United States is widely viewed as being one of the most important targets for terrorist attacks due to the increased violence actions around the world. The 9/11 events have pointed out the fact that the territory of the U.S. is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the acts of uncontrollable and unpredictable violence. In this sense, both its national ground, as well as its territories oversea is faced with the constant threat of terrorism. Especially in the last two decades, the number of terrorist attacks increased as more diplomats and U.S. citizens have been the victims of embassy bombings. The events in the 80s that took place in Beirut and other parts of the Middle East proved the U.S. their vulnerability in terms of defending against asymmetric threats. Furthermore, at the end of the 90s the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings showed the degree in which vulnerabilities can harm and endanger the lives of diplomats and the diplomatic service. This is why it is important to consider the various aspects which could create a vulnerable position for the U.S. embassies from around the world.

Indeed the United States represents one of the most important foreign presences in any country in which it sends a diplomatic mission. However, there are certain hotspots in the world marked by a higher degree of insecurity by comparison to others. Such places include the Middle East in particular, as well as parts of Africa. However, most of the times the lack of possibility of the U.S. embassies to ensure the protection of their nationals on foreign territory is also seen through random attacks on U.S. civilians or U.S. military in different parts of the world, actions claimed by forces such as Al Qaeda or even local forces which aim to use political terror as a means of reaching their goals.

The unfortunately large number of terrorist attacks which have targeted U.S. diplomatic missions represents an important source of analysis in the search for new means of improving the protection of embassies throughout the world and at the same time of reducing the possibilities of the embassies being used as tools for influencing the political stand of the U.S. In regard to various matters affecting the world today. This is why, in order to better consider the vulnerability degree of embassies and diplomatic missions, it is essential to take into account several particular examples of U.S. embassies attacks which may offer certain ideas about areas most vulnerable and most searched by terrorist groups planning attacks and, at the same time, may sketch a possible improved framework of security which could be implemented at the level of the government's security service in charge of the U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.

One of the first major attacks conducted against U.S. embassy targets took place in April 1983 when 63 people were killed of which 17 U.S. citizens. The responsibility was claimed by the Islamic Jihad. However, it was not a singular event that caught the news in that year, as the October 1983 U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut attack proved as well the vulnerability of U.S. citizens and troops. As in the case of the embassies, there were certain issues that had to be taken into consideration from security reasons. First and foremost, there was no coherent analysis made in terms of risks and vulnerabilities on the ground. Lebanon was a country marked by civil war, in a region that was widely known at the time as being in a volatile state of security. It was precisely for this reason that U.S. troops were present in the country. However, military staff as well as the Department of State failed to take into consideration the power and capabilities of terrorist factions and their desire to inflict harm on any representative of a foreign presence. Moreover, the withdrawal of troops in the late 1982 allowed the extremist opposition in Lebanon to take action and retaliate. In this context, the bombing of the U.S. Embassy was explicable.

Another element which must be taken into consideration and which is not underlined for diplomats being sent in missions especially in the Middle East is the fact that the United States embassies are most often viewed as symbols of western civilization in societies that have come to develop a deep sense of rejection towards it. Therefore, in general, posts in countries such as the Middle East ones are difficult both in terms of diplomatic activities focused more on creating a bridge between the different national and civilization perceptions, as well as from the point-of-view of the security system. In this sense, "by trying to keep order in Beirut, the Marines and U.S. diplomats were seen as allies of Lebanon's unpopular government and became targets of snipers, shellings and car bombings." From this point-of-view, at the time, it seemed obvious that U.S. diplomats were to a certain extent mere immobile targets for any future terrorist attacks.

Such attacks followed shortly, with the U.S. embassy in Kuwait being the next target for the December 1983 attacks on the diplomatic mission. It claimed the lives of six individuals. The 1998 Nairobi and Dar es Salaam U.S. embassy bombings were yet another example of terrorist attacks on the diplomatic missions of the United States in the world. Then too were embassies used as targets and means of influencing political opinion and choice in the United States. The African-based embassies were an important mission pillar therefore the impact of the almost simultaneous blasts in the two embassies pointed out, according to subsequent analysis that the work conducted in order to orchestrate such an attack was in fact of a terrorist organization. Nonetheless, the size of the attacks was considerable taking into account the fact that "The bombings claimed at least 230 lives - including 12 Americans - and injured nearly 5,000. Kenya's National Disaster Operation Center said Tuesday that 220 people were confirmed killed in Nairobi. Ten Africans died in Tanzania."

One of the most recent events in this series of embassy attacks unfolded in January 2007 when the U.S. embassy was attacked through a missile that did not eventually cause human victims but material damages. At the time, and following police inquiries, the results led to the belief that the attack was the work of a domestic group, more precisely of Greek leftists.

The events in Greece were not significant in terms of casualties or damages. The serious issue these attacks posed revolves around the idea of terrorism becoming one of the most common methods used to influence political decisions and the ongoing process of international relations among countries. In this sense, the Athens bombing point out the fact that even in one of the most important and civilized regions in the world is affected by the flagellum of terrorism. Yet another important factor the bombings underline is the fact that embassies and in general diplomatic missions came to represent one of the most common targets for terrorists both national groups and international groups alike.

From the perspective of the wide range of issues under discussion in relation to embassy bombings conducted at the world level, there are certain issues that should be underlined which could serve as worthy conclusions to the actions that have taken place in the last decades.

First and foremost, terrorism is becoming an ever increasing dangerous phenomenon for both the state and its population. Terrorists used this tool against states to influence their political decisions and in some cases with a rather high rate of success. The Carter Administration's hostage crisis is relevant in this sense. The U.S. Embassy in Tehran was for 444 days the captivity zone for more than 70 U.S. citizens. The act conducted in 1979 represented one of the signs to point out the vulnerability of politics in their confrontation with asymmetric threats such as terrorism. For the citizens of the state, both the nationals of the country in which the attack takes place as well as the ones taken hostage or killed, terrorism is first of all a psychological threat and pressure rather than a physical one. Nowadays, especially in the wake of the 9/11 events, the population around the world is living in a constant state of fear of possible terrorist attacks. This in turn has limited their choices and it is widely known the fact that places marked by terrorist acts are now being avoided by tourists and even business people. The Sharm al-Sheikh Egyptian resort was deeply affected by the 2005 attacks and underlined even more the volatile situation in the Middle East and neighboring countries.

Secondly, terrorist attacks have little regard for the targets they follow. They are most of the times chosen randomly thus while both business centers can be targeted, so are strategic posts such as embassies diplomatic missions. In this sense, according to the American National Security Policy, the first targets of terrorist acts are business centers, followed by other targets such as houses, various cultural centers, and institutions. Still, embassy targeting is a very common practice used by terrorists as well. Despite the fact that they should be considered one of the most important institutions of a state abroad they are not exempted from threats such as terrorist acts. Moreover, the security level such a facility would imply does not detract terrorists and does not limit their actions.

Thirdly, it must be taken into account the fact that bombings are not the only means used by terrorists in their activities. Also, apart from attacking targets through bombs, they also use fire attacks, arms, and even kidnapping techniques to follow their goals. However, apart from these physical techniques, terrorists also use advanced technology to communicate and even inflict harm. They use different internet websites, such as various fundamentalist Islamic sites where proponents of terrorist action try to rally support for their cause against western civil and military targets. Also, the use of emails and different other means of communication represent as well a new and rather dangerous type of techniques used to influence political attitudes.

Finally, in terms of regional placement of terrorist acts, there are spread around the world. According to the American National Security Policy, Latin America is the most active region in terms of terrorist attacks against the U.S. However, they are not significant in terms of victims or casualties; their importance resides in the frequency of the attacks. The Middle East is as well an important region to be taken into account from this point-of-view as anti-American attacks are conducted regularly against U.S. facilities. Also, even Eurasia and Western Europe are regarded as regions where terrorist acts against the U.S. can occur. Therefore it can be said that terrorism and especially actions addressing U.S. targets is a widespread phenomenon and is not limited to a particular region of the world.

Having in mind these ideas, in order to try to prevent events such as the Embassy bombings in Lebanon, Kenya, Tanzania, or Greece, it is important to consider possible solutions for reducing the vulnerability of American sites, particularly of embassies, with due regard to the ideas mentioned above.

First and foremost, an increased attention should be given to the environment in which embassies are located. Indeed, each state, in order to conduct its political affairs, economic interests, and cultural ones, as well as to ensure a proper diplomatic protection for its citizens residing in the respective country, must develop good diplomatic ties with all the states in the world. Embassies are one of the best means and most frequently used tools for developing foreign relations. However, these should not be done at the expense of the security of diplomats and the staff serving the respective embassy. From this point-of-view, before opening a diplomatic mission it is important to take into account the security environment in finest detail, from an overall general assessment of the region, to the actual abilities of the local police to ensure protection of the building and the surrounding site. The provisions of international law consider an obligation of the receiving state to offer the diplomatic mission an adequate protection against possible acts of vandalism or even terrorist attacks. Despite this however, it is hard to ascertain ahead the actual possible threats an embassy may face in a given country; still, due to the complexity of the security threats facing nowadays the entire world, it is important that local police consider measures strong enough to deter attacks or violent act against the embassy.

Secondly, any possible security offered by local police or the security department in the ministry of internal affairs in a state notwithstanding, the embassy in itself must take the necessary precautionary actions to ensure the protection of their own staff, especially high ranked officers. In this sense, the U.S. Embassy should have in mind the increased personal protection of the embassy's staff to prevent possible attacks to their personal integrity. Indeed, these would require additional costs from the part of the American state; however, such an initiative may reduce the degree of insecurity of the embassy's overall staff. However, even in these situations, any additional security forces should be carefully and thoroughly checked before entering in the service of private diplomatic protection because, otherwise, their very existence near the U.S. diplomats may represent a vulnerable point in the security of the embassy staff.

Thirdly, the 1961 Vienna Convention concerning diplomatic relations identifies the three categories of staff working inside an embassy. According to the document, there are three types of staff: the diplomatic agents, the technical and administrative staff, and the members of the service staff. Therefore, due to the variety of categories, there must be particular rules of procedure applicable to each of them. In this sense, the diplomatic staff is rarely put into question because they are the representatives of the sending state and therefore they have no interest of jeopardizing the security of their own mission.

On the other hand, the technical and administrative staff is most of the times recruited from the nationals of the receiving country. Therefore, it is possible that in countries such as Iraq, China, North Korea or other sensitive regions in the world, members of the administrative staff to be in connection with different terrorist organizations which may use the inside information provided by the embassy's members of the staff to conduct subversive actions against the embassy. Similarly, increased attention should be given to the members of the service staff who are the least involved in the diplomatic activity but can be, in a certain situation, worthy sources of information for different interest groups outside the embassy. From this point-of-view, in order to exclude the staff from the list of vulnerabilities, it is important that a thorough control be conducted on their background, affiliations, and political convictions before actually hiring them. In a sensitive matter such as diplomatic security it is important to consider and exclude any possible source of vulnerability because, in the end, it is not a matter of personal security, and more of national security, taking into consideration the importance of the information filtered and used in the embassy.