(4 of 7)
More to the point, why are embassies and diplomats such popular terrorist targets? One root cause, many Western diplomats believe, is that a number of postcolonial, Third World countries are far less inclined than tradition-minded Western states to abide by the old rules of discourse among nations. The fact is, modern diplomacy is a Western invention, developed piecemeal by the duchies and principalities of 15th and 16th century Europe. Western diplomats, at least, would not know how to operate without two of its principal canons: the "immunity" of foreign diplomats from local laws and regulations, and the "inviolability" of embassy ground. Inviolable sanctuary has been upheld even in hours of international conflict. In the aftermath of the Hungarian Revolution, for example, Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty sought and received the safety of the U.S. legation in Budapest for 15 years. These principles are spelled out in the Vienna Convention of 1961, which has been ratified by 131 nations—including Iran.
By traditional standards of diplomacy, the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran represented a particularly abhorrent violation of these two moorings of diplomatic practice. But it was not unique. When mobs sacked the U.S. embassy in Tripoli last year, Washington strongly accused Libyan authorities of allowing it. "Civilized countries have no possibility of retaliation, because to arrest the envoy of an offending power in return is alien to our concepts," Italian Diplomat Ducci complains. "Why do we then continue to offer hostages to imams and to fortune?" Enrico Jacchia, a noted Italian political scientist, is somewhat more philosophical: "We assumed that the Western principle of diplomatic immunity could be applied everywhere in the Third World. In other words we wanted to export our way of life—and it didn't work."
Another reason that diplomats and embassies are increasingly frequent targets of violence is that the attacks often succeed. Embassy invasion is fast becoming in the '80s what skyjacking was in the '70s. Says Brian Jenkins, the Rand Corp.'s specialist on terrorism: "The generally harder line toward other forms of international terrorism has not applied to the taking over of diplomatic missions. There is mounting evidence that terrorists may have shifted to diplomatic missions, where they are less likely to face assault."
There is little agreement about what the priorities should be in trying to combat the threat. Many experts argue for a coordinated international strategy, including new antiterrorist laws comparable to those against skyjacking. Agreement has been elusive. As a former U.S. ambassador complains, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Another problem is that diplomatic outposts cannot be turned into minimilitary bases. Many U.S. officials contend that the Tehran crisis was unavoidable, once the Iranian police allowed it to happen, because no reasonable number of Marines could have stopped it. Said one U.S. security official: "If you cannot rely on the host government for protection, you will have to post a Marine division around every embassy." Consequently, the prevailing response to embassy terrorism is the "barricade" approach.