Architecture Expert Offers Views on Embassy Security by Larry Luxner When it comes to embassies and their role in U.S. foreign policy, Jane Loeffler literally wrote the book on the subject. Her 306-page masterpiece, ìThe Architecture of Diplomacy: Building Americaís Embassies,î is an overview of how the United Statesóstarting in the 1950sóbegan building new embassies around the globe as statements of recognition and welcome. From Havana to Helsinki, these embassies were intended to express the achievement and accomplishment of American democracy at the height of the Cold War. ìAmericaís new embassies were extraordinary modern structures of glass, steel and concrete, symbols of openness and democracy,î she wrote. ìBut it was not long before these often impractical buildingsóand the process of making themóbecame controversial, and nowhere more so than in Congress.î The Washington Diplomat spoke with Loeffler at her comfortable home in Northwest Washington. She said that her book, published in 1998 by Princeton Architectural Press, mostly deals with chanceries rather than official diplomatic residences, although the word ìembassyî covers both generally. ìI d idnít write this book to be about security. I was writing about architecture. The theme of security really didnít emerge until the late í60s anyway, and this book focuses on the years before that,î Loeffler explained, adding that the business of building embassies abroad ìis a political process, not just a real estate operation happening in a vacuum, with architects making decisions about style and decor. Itís all about funding and political decisions on Capitol Hill.î To conduct the research for her book, Loeffler visited at least 20 U.S. embassies overseas, most of them in Europe, including London, Paris, Brussels, Dublin, Stockholm, Oslo, Athens and Copenhagen. ìI didnít know I was going to write a book, but whenever I went someplace, I tried to visit the embassy,î she said, noting that the Graham Foundation and the George Washington Universityówhich awarded her a doctorate in American civilization in 1996óhelped finance her travels and research. ìNobody thought this was a good topic, but it was the first scholarly paper written on this subject,î said the author. ìI decided it should be a book, so I made it into a book. It came out just weeks before the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa. Now, everybody uses it as a reference.î Today, in a post-9/11 world of terror alerts and U.S. embassy evacuations overseas, Loeffler is often cited as an expert. After al Qaedaís August 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, she wrote a lengthy opinion piece for the Washington Post titled ìDiplomacy Doesnít Belong in Bunkers.î A number of architectural magazines have also reviewed her book, as has the New Yorker. Loeffler, 57 and a native of Boston, is also a visiting associate professor at the University of Maryland, where she teaches a course titled ìFrom Glass Boxes to Bunkers: Architecture, Power and Public Policy.î She has been featured on ABC Nightline, CNN and the BBC World Service in interviews on embassy architecture and security. In addition, she has been cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, St. Petersburg Times, USA Today and Voice of America. Loeffler argues that foreign embassies in Washington are much better protected than U.S. embassies in other countries. ìForeign embassies are uniquely situated here because they have the protection of the U.S. government, and we are very reliable,î she said. ìBut weíre being protected overseas by people who are not always very reliable, and our embassies are at the mercy of the host country, which doesnít always come through for us.î Loeffler, who has also contributed to a soon-to-be-published photography book about U.S. embassies, said foreign missions in Washington are naturally reluctant to openly discuss their security arrangementsóespecially those that are obvious targets, such as the Israeli Embassy on International Drive. ìThereís often more than meets the eye, even in embassies where it looks like thereís no security,î she said. ìIt can be quite sophisticated. Even what appears to be a very open embassy can be segregated spatially, using glass and electronic locks. There are cameras which you may not see, as well as inconspicuous locks. You may see doors but they may not open.î Loeffler added, ìThe Italian Embassy is an example of a building thatís highly fortified. Thereís nothing flimsy about that building. It has a sequential entrance with various sets of doors. You canít just walk in from the street.î Loefflerís book contains dozens of photographs of U.S. missions overseas, including American embassies in far-flung hotspots such as Amman, Jordan; Mogadishu, Somalia; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Bogot·, Colombia; and Sanaía, Yemen. Although the author certainly couldnít have predicted the East African embassy bombingsóor any other terrorist attack for that matteróìI knew from what I was seeing before that worse things were going to happen. I could also tell that whatever was going to happen overseas would affect us at home. People werenít really interested in that before,î she said. ìWhat is most worrisome about the worldwide effort to upgrade embassy protection is that security cannot be the sole determinant of embassy design or location policy without severely compromising the overseas mission of a government that values openness and accessibility,î she continued. ìEmbassies are enormously powerful symbols. Security is absolutely essential if Americans are to be protected at foreign posts, but infrastructure improvements by themselves cannot eliminate terrorism as a threat at embassies or elsewhere.î On a less serious note, Loeffler devotes some space in her book to the subject of ambassador residences. ìItís easy to make light of a residence,î she said. ìFor example, whenever Congress would scrutinize an American embassy abroad, they would criticize anything that had to do with entertainment. Theyíd ridicule that as being an unnecessary expense, not wanting to admit that this is where business takes placeóeven though members of Congress always expect to be lavishly entertained themselves.î Loeffler was recently commissioned by Colombiaís Villegas Editores to write the introduction to an elaborate coffee-table book titled ìEmbassy Residences in Washington, D.C.î (see the December 2003 issue of The Washington Diplomat). It was an assignment she clearly enjoyed. ìIn any other city, these mansions wouldnít be here anymore,î she said. ìThe only reason theyíre here for us to look at and enjoy is because foreign governments needed places to operate in the capital, and they happened to be looking for real estate at the time these houses were on the market.î Asked which residences she likes best, Loeffler replied, ìItís hard to pick a favorite from such an array of wonderful buildings,î especially if both chanceries and residences are included. ìI love the way in which the Finnish Chancery fits so perfectly with its wooded landscape, and the way the Canadian Chancery works magic along Pennsylvania Avenue,î she said. ìAnd I love the new Italian Chancery, which is such a strong sculptural statement, and the Danish Embassy nearby, which is quite the opposite. ìAs for the ambassadorial residences that were originally built as homes for rich Americans, the most elegant could be the Brazilian ambassadorís residence, and the most amazing is probably the Turkish. It is impossible to have favorites, as I said, when there are so many stupendous choices.î Larry Luxner is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.