Diplomacy requires risks, and the U.S. has been shrinking from them

"A world of zero risk is not a world in which American diplomacy can deliver," U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said as he introduced his plan for modernizing American diplomacy at the Foreign Service Institute.

Part of that plan, he said, would address the overly strict security protocols that prevent our diplomats from doing their jobs. Some in Congress agree and are working to pass legislation to do the same.

And it's long overdue. Diplomacy is about relationships and trust — to build them you need to meet people where they are and be part of their world. It's hard to be an effective diplomat from inside a bunker.

I know because I've tried. I spent eight months at that same diplomatic training center learning Somali, at U.S. taxpayer expense, before I joined the U.S. Mission to Somalia in 2016. It was an exciting time. We had our first ambassador to Somalia in 25 years, signaling a new era of diplomatic engagement with an important counterterrorism partner.

Had I known that I would not set foot in any part of Somalia outside the Mogadishu International Airport compound during my 20 months with the mission, I might not have been so enthusiastic about my studies. Thanks to risk aversion in Washington, U.S. diplomats are still not allowed to travel outside that heavily guarded compound where our embassy is now located. Burdensome security protocols and inadequate resources make it hard to travel elsewhere in the country too.

Somalia can be dangerous, but even staff of small European missions manage to move around Mogadishu, join discussions at the presidential palace, and travel on United Nations flights to participate in events or meetings elsewhere in the country. None of this was available to us. Instead of managing the risks, like everyone else, the U.S. government sought to avoid them entirely. This came at a cost.

If our ambassador needed to meet the Somali president, we had to persuade him to come to us on the airport compound — an embarrassment on both sides. When the president called meetings of international partners, we would be stuck trying to connect via video. Years before the COVID-19 pandemic would normalize Zoom, this was partially effective at best.

This sent a message that Somalia wasn't important enough for us to make diplomacy work, even when everyone else could.

Our military colleagues didn't face the same restrictions. They could move readily inside Mogadishu and around the country. As a result, the U.S. representatives that people there saw were military, and that sends a message, too. It's hard to convincingly lead with diplomacy when your diplomats aren't out in front.

This impediment isn't limited to conflict zones either. For the past 20 years, the State Department has been moving our embassies away from city centers to distant suburbs isolated from most of the country's population. Instead of physically representing our engagement, they symbolize something out of reach. They are also impractical, far away from where things happen, so it is difficult for diplomats to participate with host country counterparts or organizations with whom they are meant to build relationships.

Previously, U.S. embassies were part of their local communities and respected places to be seen. Today, visiting a U.S. embassy is a hassle to avoid. Bringing guests into these fortresslike compounds is so burdensome that many diplomats default to meeting elsewhere, making the security protocols themselves counterproductive. If terrorism or crime risk is high in a country, it's hardly safer for embassy staff to congregate at the cafe next door for meetings. Barriers to engaging in the community also make it harder to understand its players, which impedes our ability to accurately assess political and security risks. These obstacles make it harder for diplomats to do their jobs, which could ultimately make all of us less safe.

This puts us at a comparative disadvantage, too. Other countries, including our competitors, are out front. China has doubled down on diplomatic presence in recent years and now has more diplomatic posts than any other country. As China uses its Belt and Road Initiative to ensure that its physical commitment in other countries is clear, America can't even showcase its people.

Secretary Blinken understands the political risk involved in putting our diplomats out there. He was part of the Obama administration when attacks in Benghazi left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others dead. But he also understands the opportunity cost of tolerating no risk at all. I hope that this administration is ready to achieve that better balance, managing rather than avoiding risk so that our diplomats can succeed.

I won't hold my breath though. In August 2016, I asked a visitor from Washington when we would have permission to travel into Mogadishu. We'd been told for months that it was only a matter of time. "They just want to get past the election," he said. Five years later, U.S. diplomats there are still waiting. If politics governs the decision, I expect they'll be waiting a long time more.

Elizabeth Shackelford is a senior fellow on U.S. foreign policy with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is author of "The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age." This article first appeared in the Chicago Tribune.