Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy.

Front Page

Jul 29, 2005

Getting bombed over cocktails
By Jeffrey Robertson

Dinner suits, the odd spot of intrigue, exotic locations and endless cocktail parties - the popular image of a diplomat who sits at the upper end of the government-service hierarchy. But is

the threat of terrorism sullying the attraction of a lifestyle that was once known as "an extension of aristocratic life"?

The list of terrorist attacks on diplomatic premises across the globe continues to grow. Beirut, Nairobi, Istanbul, Jakarta, Jeddah and Baghdad. The most recent incident involved the head of the Algerian mission, Ali Belaroussi, and diplomat Azzedine Belkadi who were kidnapped in the Mansour neighborhood in Baghdad. Now, an al-Qaeda-linked group claims that the two have been executed because their government "is ruling in violation of God's will".

The life of the modern diplomat is a far cry from what one observer at the turn of the last century described as "dinners, luncheons, and entertainments of all kinds … knee-deep in engagements".

The security-conscious modern diplomat in contrast is bereft of entertainment and knee-deep only in paperwork. Terrorism has been accepted as yet another aspect of daily routine. Diplomats cannot avoid or escape terrorism but must follow its macabre path, as Australian Prime Minister John Howard noted in response to the 2002 Bali bombings:

"I don't know that bringing diplomats home is automatically the right thing to do. If anything we need more people on the ground, or as many people as safely can be put on the ground to get as much information as we possibly can."

The Bali bombings of 2002 awoke the East Asian region to modern terrorism. The entire diplomatic community in Jakarta was shaken by the event, which brought out the more frightening aspects of usually mundane consular affairs. Yet the regional diplomatic community had only narrowly missed hitting international headlines one year before when Singaporean authorities arrested 13 members of a Jemah Islamiyah (JI) cell allegedly in the preparatory stages of simultaneous suicide bomb attacks on Australian, British, American and Israeli diplomatic premises.

There was no such luck on September 9, 2004 in Jakarta. Had it not been for recent security upgrades and the poor positioning of the 200kg of explosives outside the Australian embassy, the scale of the disaster would have been comparable to the 1998 East Africa United States embassy bombings. The simultaneous suicide bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam killed 257, including 45 diplomatic officers, and left thousands injured.

Today, efforts to protect diplomats or "force protection measures" are standard in the modern diplomatic service. The United States has long dedicated itself to the security of its diplomatic premises and is currently in the midst of a program of security upgrades to the value of more than US$1 billion across the entire American diplomatic network.

This includes the installation of blast and attack resistant windows and doors, improved sensors and security monitoring systems, fortified perimeter walls and barriers to prevent car and truck bomb attacks. Less than a year after the September 11 attacks, when a bomb-laden car exploded outside the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, such measures had already saved countless lives.

But no force protection measure could have saved the life of Laurence Foley, an officer for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Amman, Jordan, when he was gunned down outside his family home as he left for work in December 2002.

Since then, attacks on diplomats have brought an altogether more-frightening aspect to modern diplomatic life. Diplomatic facilities such as embassies and consular offices have always been the target of extremists, being fortified symbols of the states they represent. The targeting of individual diplomats, however, marks another chapter in the evolving nature of terrorism. As one target becomes more difficult, terrorists switch to another, softer target - and the targeting of individual diplomats has been the next logical step.

The recent kidnap and murder of Ihab al-Sherif, the Egyptian envoy to Iraq, the attempted kidnap of Hassan al-Ansari, the Bahranian charge d' affaires, and the attempted assassination of Yunis Khan, the Pakistani ambassador, represent the latest sordid twist in the tactic. The attacks and their aim to reduce the legitimacy of the Iraqi government amongst its peers, are a strategic maneuver, far removed from any ideological belief.

Yet the targeting of individual diplomats is not something that happens only in the far-away and tellingly dangerous Middle East. The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2004 that "specific and credible" information led analysts to believe the regional terror network JI was preparing assassination squads targeted at western diplomats in Indonesia.

Today there are tighter controls on Western diplomatic staff across the Southeast Asian region. Force protection measures once confined to military personnel, such as location and activity reporting, strict curfews, travel restrictions, and barrack-style accommodation, are becoming more common for diplomatic personnel.

Diplomatic staff are also warned to avoid forming identifiable patterns, such as leaving work at the same time every day and taking the same route - something very foreign to most average public servants in their sleepy and familiar home capitals. In these ways terrorism is changing the practice of diplomacy at every working level. The primary aim of a diplomat, to establish and maintain working contacts with host governments and populations, is made near impossible by such overt security.

As Sir John Moberly, former United Kingdom ambassador to Iraq, stated, "everyone living in a fortress … will totally nullify the purpose of having an ambassador".

A report by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University found that terrorism also caused substantial changes in the internal social dynamics of embassies. The report found that a new managerial pecking order has emerged, as security issues are prioritized, and other tasks such as economic reporting, commercial advocacy and domestic political reporting are downgraded.

"Ambassadors and other senior officials now devote greater time and attention to terrorism-related issues and consequently less to other aspects of the mission."

Similarly, the report found that terrorism exacerbates recruitment and retention challenges. Stress and difficult personal circumstances contribute to an increased number of foreign service officers opting for one-year postings, undermining the diplomatic aim of building lasting relationships with host governments.

The threat of terrorism has also led to an increased number of US posts designated as "unaccompanied" - meaning that family members may not accompany spouses at post.

The report quotes a former ambassador in Asia as stating, "in the Asia/Middle East region, there are five posts under ordered departure this year, five posts with families ripped apart, disrupted. This means enormous stresses on families … [terrorism] has affected recruitment".

The role of a diplomat has long ceased to be an extension of aristocratic life. But in its modern incarnation, it remains as much a lifestyle choice as a career choice - under the shadow of modern terrorism however, it is fast becoming a less than attractive one.

Jeffrey Robertson is a political affairs analyst focusing on Northeast Asia, currently based in Seoul.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110