Posted on 08/16/2003 4:44:27 PM PDT by Pokey78
Diplomats in the 19th century were aristocrats. Their embassies were palaces and villas in the smartest parts of Paris and Vienna, Berlin, St Petersburg and London, houses where kings and princes might sleep and entertain.
In the 20th century, embassies in many capitals still exuded magnificence but became, behind their facades, mere offices - for issuing visas, for promoting trade. In the 21st century, the institution has changed again.
Today, the embassies of some countries, notably those of the US and UK, constitute a series of very grand and prestigious military targets scattered around the world. In London, the United States now houses itself in Grosvenor Square less in an embassy than in a fortress.
Sealed off since September 11, 2001, by wire cages, bollards, railings, crash barriers, barbed wire and traffic-slowing concrete, protected by police with machine guns and by a battalion of US security men, it looks more like a military complex.
And the embassy now wants to make its fortifications permanent. It seeks to extend its perimeter. The Ambassador, William Farish, wants to close some neighbouring streets and to reconfigure others - notably Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street - as permanent single lane defiles.
A number of neighbouring Mayfair residents - and I am among them, as are several Americans - believe ourselves to be in real and immediate peril from these plans. We see an extended perimeter, designed to keep any car bomb at a distance from the complex, as merely pushing a car bomb closer to our own homes.
Consider the explosions in Nairobi, Teheran, Bali and Dar es Salaam: al-Qaeda terrorists showed zero respect for innocent lives and collateral damage when planting their bombs there. And in recent attacks on American targets, most of the victims have not been American.
Car bombs are not our only concern. The Americans and the frightened residents of Mayfair have seen suicide bombers incinerate themselves outside the French Embassy and are alert to the risks that lurk in the long queues of US visa applicants in Upper Grosvenor Street.
The Embassy's response has been to search these queues for weapons in two Portakabins sited a healthy distance from the main building - as close to local houses as to the Embassy.
At present, US officials estimate that the queues extend to 400-plus a day. After Congress passes new legislation to make the issue of US visas a more rigorous procedure, they are expected by the embassy to climb above 1,000 a day.
We fear that dense crowds will increase the chances for suicide bombers to mingle; and argue that this is the likeliest means for terrorists to strike. One group of Mayfair residents calling itself Ground Zero threatened the US Ambassador in July with a writ if he proceeded with a planning application which was to be heard by Westminster City Council on August 28. It seems to have won a triumphant victory because the Ambassador has withdrawn it.
An analysis conducted by a former US Department of Defence expert for residents living on the Embassy doorstep in Upper Brook Street and Upper Grosvenor Street concluded that the US Embassy is "militarily indefensible" from a determined terrorist attack.
The conclusion is painful but inescapable. Prime military targets for bombers cannot be sited in the crowded heart of capital cities, in London or anywhere else. The US Embassy is probably the No 1 terrorist target in the world outside the United States.
The truth is that the Ambassador must now accept these realities and begin the process of moving his embassy from the home which it has occupied for two centuries and head for a safer, more suitable site.
It seems he has made a start. His representative has approached the Royal Household about moving to Kensington Palace. As an isolated and defensible building, it is obviously suitable - as would be the Ambassador's residence, Winfield House in Regent's Park.
"It's our bomb or their bomb," declared an elderly resident at a Mayfair public meeting with US officials last month. It won him no sympathy. "We have something of a Nimby problem here," was the cool response of James Lane, US Minister-Counsellor in London.
Close neighbours believe they are "completely unprotected", by the Americans or by the Metropolitan Police. In the short term, we seek the closure of surrounding streets to traffic. In the long term, however, we have exposed a 21st century reality: high-target embassies no longer have a place in the heart of civilised cities.
The neighbors make a good point per terrorists and a willingness to kill anyone near their target. No easy answers here, I'm afraid.
Thanks for the post.
"high-target embassies no longer have a place in the heart of civilised cities."
There's a contradiction in this sentence, but don't rely on British editors to spot it. It could be the juxtaposition of the word 'target' with 'civilised', or perhaps the quaint survival of the word 'embassy' with the modern notion than envoys are the first, rather than the last to be attacked. By I think the worst offender is the word 'heart', which implies the existence of a sympathy -- sympathy for the need to keep the British embassy safe in Washington DC -- the reciprocity on which all diplomacy is built. In truth, the United Nations building can simply be regarded as a security risk and all British consulates in America nothing but IRA targets not worth a single taxpayer cent to protect. The article should edit the above sentence to read:
"the US embassy is not welcome in London"
Erect a mosque in its place with the banner "if you build it they will come".
Next to Kensington Palace is Embassy Row...the street is blocked off both ends and very few cars are allowed....maybe they could buy someone's property on that street.
I sure don't blame those people for not wantng 1000 people queueing up in such a nice neighborhood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.