Good Fences and Good Neighbors: Security and Diplomacy Travel Hand-in-HandAmbassador Richard J. Griffin, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Feb. 20, 2007 As Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the State Department, I have the privilege of heading an organization that is dedicated to providing a secure environment for the conduct of U.S. diplomacy worldwide. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, or DS as we call it, protects people, property, and information at more than 285 Department of State facilities worldwide. Among these are approximately 150 properties that are significant for their historical, architectural, or cultural qualities. Seventeen of these properties are listed on the Secretary of State’s Register of Culturally Significant Property. Copies of a brochure describing the Secretary’s Register were included in your conference packets. The Secretary’s Register is similar to the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. A group called the Cultural Resources Committee reviews properties that are nominated each year for inclusion on the Secretary’s Register. The Register includes chanceries, ambassadorial residences, office buildings, staff apartments, a gardener’s house, and a guesthouse. Incorporating security features into a new building that you are designing and building from scratch is relatively easy compared with the challenge of retrofitting security for an existing building—particularly when the building may be hundreds of years old and considered an architectural treasure. Like all State Department properties, our culturally significant properties are symbolic of America’s foreign policy and America’s values. As such, they rank high as targets for some to express their hostility toward the United States. The challenge is to make these properties secure without compromising the qualities that make them significant.
In 1999, the State Department, the U.S. General Services Administration, and the American Institute of Architects organized a conference called “Balancing Security and Openness.” At that conference, one participant commented that “You can’t have diplomacy behind razor-wire.” Since our embassies and other State Department facilities reflect the values of the United States, we strive to provide security for people, property, and information without compromising the openness and transparency for which the United States is known worldwide. That is a consideration that we must take into account whether we are designing a new embassy from scratch or retrofitting security for an older one. Protecting important cultural property may be a bigger challenge today than at any time in recent history. I don’t have to remind you that terrorists are equal opportunity destroyers. In 2001, when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of the Bamyan Valley in Afghanistan, the fact that those statues had survived since the 6th century and were on UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites meant nothing to the terrorists. Unfortunately, terrorists now have increasingly destructive weapons at their disposal. And they have no compunction about using them, whether to destroy great works of art or other property that is symbolic of a civilization or culture that they want to annihilate. In addition to the issues I just mentioned, there are additional challenges to ensuring security for culturally significant property. These include: * fitting new systems into old contexts without damage * installing security features that are reversible * working with local governments, and, of course, * cost. DS establishes security requirements for all Department of State facilities worldwide and implements the security measures that allow properties to meet the requirements. In the case of properties that are culturally significant for architectural and/or historical reasons, DS Security Engineers, Security Specialists, and our Special Agents work with engineers and architects in the State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations to find ways to meet the security requirements, while preserving the specific architectural and historical elements that make these properties special. Every State Department facility is assessed to determine its “threat rating,” which is a numerical score based on an established set of criteria. Security standards are established for each facility based on its threat rating. This allows for flexibility in adapting security measures and procedures to each facility’s actual needs. For example, in Oslo, Norway, the American ambassador lives in the Villa Otium, which is on the Secretary of State’s Register and also on the Norwegian Preservation Agency’s list of significant buildings. Since Oslo’s threat rating is low, DS has adapted its security standards accordingly for this 1911 building. The security measures that we use at all State Department properties fall into two broad categories: physical security measures and procedural security measures. The physical security measures include: fences, walls, bollards, pop–up barriers, forced entry doors, hard-line walls, shatter-resistant window film and strengthened window glass, and alarms and motion sensors. When we use these physical security measures to protect a culturally significant property, we adapt the measures to the architecture of the culturally significant property. In upgrading security for culturally significant properties, we follow a do-no-damage approach in order to maintain the properties’ historic and aesthetic value. DS and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations follow preservation guidelines– including the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines, the Venice Charter, and host country's regulations and customs– whenever we are faced with a situation in which bringing a property in line with security standards might have an adverse impact on the elements that make the property significant from an historical and/or aesthetic perspective. An adverse impact is anything that affects the "character-defining features" of a property. Sometimes these features are not even visible to the naked eye, because they are underground. A good example of our “do no damage” approach can be seen in our current effort to improve security around the perimeter of the Palazzo Margherita, a 17th-century building that our Embassy in Rome uses for offices. Our security upgrades at the Palazzo have unearthed ancient artifacts, including imperial lead water pipes from a villa owned by General Sallust, who fought under Julius Caesar. The State Department is employing an Italian archaeologist, who is recording and preserving these artifacts. In a city where history is so highly valued, the United States’ diplomatic presence is enhanced by association with this landmark building and by our efforts to preserve the history embodied within and underneath its walls. In some cases, culturally significant properties are protected by increasing set back from the street by purchasing adjacent property. In other cases, properties are protected by applying standards with flexibility, taking into consideration site-specific threats and vulnerabilities. In the best case scenario, the inherent historic features of a cultural property can be used to contribute to security protection. For example, the State Department recently acquired a monastery in Jerusalem for use as an office building. Working together, DS and the Office of Overseas Buildings Operations were able to avoid the trouble and cost of our usual wall-hardening technique— which is to add steel plate to the inside surface of the wall— because the monastery’s three-foot thick masonry walls were wide enough to provide the protection we needed. In other cases, we have to upgrade security for properties located in dense, urban areas without detracting from a significant property’s aesthetic qualities – and without drawing undue attention to our security upgrades. This was the case with the Hôtel de Talleyrand, a 17th century townhouse that houses offices for our Embassy in Paris. There is a photo of this culturally significant property in the Secretary’s Register brochure. What that photograph does not show is the glass compound-access control point, which was designed to increase security without distracting from the aesthetics of the building. In Tirana, Albania, the perimeter of the American embassy has been upgraded by replacing an open fence with a high wall and new compound-access control buildings. Streets surrounding the Embassy have been closed and access has been controlled. The Embassy in Tirana has an interesting history. Built in 1929, it was one of the first embassies that the State Department actually had designed and built as an embassy. It was built through the provisions of the 1926 Porter Legislation that, for the first time, established the State Department’s ability to construct American government buildings in foreign countries. The State Department hired Washington, D.C., architect Nathan Wyeth, who had designed the first Oval Office in the White House for President Taft. Wyeth drew his inspiration for the Embassy from Virginia plantations, such as Mount Vernon. For 30 years during the Cold War, the United States and Albania did not have diplomatic relations, and the embassy building and gardens were rented to the Italian ambassador. In recent years, the State Department has renovated and restored the property using the original color paint, and a seismic upgrade has improved the building’s blast resistance. The original antique furniture and other antiques inside the building have been refurbished and are now being used again. With careful negotiation and creativity, security can be upgraded, even when there are multiple competing factors at play. The Chancery in Vilnius, Lithuania provides a good example. Over the past four years, the State Department has acquired adjacent properties around its Chancery in Vilnius as part of an effort to improve security setback, alleviate critical office space shortages, and provide housing for Marine Security Guards so that they can respond quickly to security threats. The goal in assembling these properties was to create a single compound with a secure perimeter. However, even with these purchases, the newly constructed Consular Annex still had an insufficient setback on one side where it is bordered by an historic cemetery and park that contains an important war memorial. The Lithuanian government was reluctant to give up the land or to allow excavation to extend anti-ram protection into the cemetery. Fortunately, careful research, negotiation, and creativity solved the problem. A photograph of the cemetery from 1880 showed that it had once had a 10-foot wide path. The path was probably destroyed during the Soviet era. DS security engineers and Overseas Buildings Operations staff developed a proposal to restore the path and to place surface-mounted anti-ram planters along the path to secure the perimeter of the Chancery and extend the setback to a full 30 meters. Lithuanian authorities accepted the proposal. As part of the overall plan, adjacent flower planters were connected with “I” beams to increase their effectiveness, and park benches were placed atop the beams to enhance the setting. Existing slopes and terrain changes were used to maximum advantage, with substantial boulders placed between mature trees on the slopes of the park. These boulders, in conjunction with the existing slopes and trees, secured another side of the Chancery, without disturbing the historic war memorial monument. By combining a number of different security elements, we were able to provide our Chancery with the required setback. Just as importantly, all parties were truly satisfied. Needless to say, this solution would not have been found without diplomacy, negotiation, and a willingness to listen and work together. In his poem “The Mending Wall,” Robert Frost wrote that “Good fences make good neighbors.” While Frost was being ironic about the positive features of fences, there is no such irony at work when it comes to providing security for the conduct of American diplomacy at embassies and other facilities around the world. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security must be mindful of the possible diplomatic ramifications of our security measures. This is particularly true when it comes to properties that are important for cultural or historical reasons. We have to ensure that our fences—and other security measures––enhance the ability of America’s diplomats to negotiate with foreign governments. By respecting and preserving the history and beauty of the properties we occupy abroad, we send a positive message about the United States and our values to the people and governments of our host countries. Thank you for your time and attention this afternoon. I would be happy to try to respond to any questions you may have. |
 | |||
|
