Protect diplomatic interest

The sustained Muslim outrage from Libya to Afghanistan and Pakistan that has seen an American ambassador killed and embassy compounds attacked requires an immediate reassessment by Western governments on how they will maintain, if at all, relations with governments in those countries.

Several Western nations closed their embassies briefly. Canada temporarily shuttered six of its diplomatic posts because of security concerns.

The U.S. sent special rapid response military teams to three of its embassies in the region to boost security, while a fourth was turned away in Sudan. It's unknown if Canada has bolstered security with additional manpower, but it is undoubtedly making such plans.

Ottawa closed its embassy in Tehran before the recent uproar, also because of concerns for the safety of Canadian staff, and handed over responsibility for Canadian affairs to Italy.

Obviously western governments, including Canada, do not want to close more embassies if it can be avoided because abrupt departures in an important region would lead to disengagement and a downgrading of the critical intelligence gathering conducted by foreign legations. It's difficult to understand the concerns and interests of people in places such as Egypt, Libya and Pakistan if we have no presence on the ground.

But until, or if, the current tumult calms down, Canada should follow the lead of other countries and boost security for its foreign affairs workers in countries that are at risk for violence. The Defence Department also needs to improve its rapid response capabilities so it can project force into a country anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

There is a limit, however, to how much protection can be added to individual embassies without creating large armed camps, which themselves would become targets for attack and would probably not be acceptable to host governments in any event.

There have always been attacks on diplomats and embassies, sometimes by state governments, but also by spontaneous outbursts of anger. For the most part, however, these have been isolated incidents, the most notable being the occupation of the American embassy in Tehran by state-supported radicals in Tehran in 1979.

In the end, foreign countries are obliged to ensure that diplomats and their staffs are protected from local anger. If they can't, or won't do that, then each country has to re-evaluate whether it can continue to maintain its presence.

There's no point to a one-sided diplomatic relationship.

There are few signs of encouragement amid the hysteria across the Islamic world, which has spread to Muslim enclaves in Europe and elsewhere. The one exception was a march by 30,000 Libyans Friday through the eastern city of Benghazi to demand the disbanding and disarming of the militias that sprung up following the downfall of the Gadhafi regime.

One of these militia groups is believed to be responsible for the attack on Benghazi's consulate, killing American ambassador Chris Stevens and several colleagues.

These militias need to be brought under control before the country collapses into armed enclaves. The problem is acute in Libya, but the proliferation of armed groups is evident across the entire region, which frequently seems like a lawless, gun-toting frontier.

The unrest was sparked by an anti-Muslim film produced privately in the United States, while satirical cartoons in a French magazine added fuel to the fire, but they aren't the first violent outbursts sparked by media and it seems unlikely they will be the last.

The challenge for the West, then, is to figure out how it can use its vast propaganda and communication capabilities to mitigate the violence while working with foreign governments and expanding cultural exchanges as part of a long-term strategy.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 22, 2012 A16