A Comparative Embassy Taxonomy

Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, and although I'm too lazy to look it up, I'd wager that it ranks pretty low on the list of U.S. trading partners. So why does the U.S. embassy in La Paz need to be a hulking 10-story monolith set back 100 feet in all directions from 15-foot blast walls and videocameras and kleig lights when so many other countries who do real business in Bolivia seem to make do with a more, shall we say, "modest" architecture? How many Special Assistant Deputy Undersecretaries of State for Bolivian Affairs do we need here, after all? What are all those USAID and Department of State and CIA staffers doing in there all day? And why the design features that scream "federal penitentiary" far louder than, um, "friendly diplomacy?" As one of Bolivia's largest foreign-aid donors, are we really so unpopular as to necessitate all this?

Landlocked and "underdeveloped," Bolivia doesn't export too much of value to the U.S. market. Sure, after testy Venezuela, this country has the continent's second-largest natural gas reserves... but very few U.S. companies operate here: the majority of foreign investment in gas comes from Petrobras (Brazil), Repsol-YPF (Spain), and Total-Elf (France). My neighborhood in Sopocachi is home to most of the embassies in La Paz, so I've had occasion to pass Spain's and Brazil's missions (haven't found France's yet). Guess what? These countries make do with buildings that sit well in their surroundings, that don't scream "We rule the world and we're afraid of peasant uprisings!"

Brazil has a big brick office tower with postmodern-looking green and yellow circles and arrows all over it - sure, it's big and ugly, but it looks just like every other big and ugly office building on the block. In fact, it's a little nicer, as if to remind the populace, just ever so slightly, of the regional economic superpower next door ready and willing to develop those petroleum reserves and pipe the gas off to Sao Paulo.

Spain, on the other hand, has gone with a subtle little gated compound of old, quaint... well, there's no other way to put this... "colonial" buildings: 2-story affairs with little gardens in front that you can see through the fence. Mixed in are some newer structures, probably with bullet-proof glass or whatever, but the message Spain seems to be sending with their embassy is, "We're not sorry we built our empire on the sweat and blood of 8 million indians in your silver mines. But, hey, that was a long time ago. Let's be friends in the 21st century, OK? Want some money to build a hospital?"

And what of the rest of the community of nations? Well, let's see:

Japan: Nice big house in suburban neighborhood. Walls, yes. Security guard, yes. But in middle-class La Paz, most houses look pretty much the same.

Argentina: 3-story office building in a neighborhood of 3-story office builings. Nice big flag.

Peru: Some floors in an ugly apartment building with a small "Embajada De Peru" sign above the door, and several reserved parking spots on the curb.

Paraguay: Flashy signage on a building shared with a nail salon and empanada restaurant.

Chile: No embassy. No diplomatic relations since 1978. Hard feelings since Chilean victory in the 1880's War of the Pacific, in which Bolivia lost its coast.

Brittain: Stately white mansion with serious-looking gate and conspicuous metal detector. A distant second to the U.S. in architecture that says "fear."

And you know what? Although I'm sure there are a plenty of other embassies around, you just don't see too much of them. Obviously, this has much to do with the comparative wealth of nations. Even if they wanted to, neighbors Paraguay and Peru probably couldn't afford anything much nicer than what they've got, and Burkina Faso? Forget it. But I think this is also partly to do with the fact that the majority of countries, with relatively little to do with Bolivia, make investments in their embassies accordingly. The logic probably goes something like this: "No need for a huge $100 million dollar building in La Paz we'll barely use. We do so little trade with Bolivia as to be negligable, and these guys aren't exactly going to attack us with nuclear warheads anytime soon. Let's save the money for a really nice spread in country X..."

It makes sense for countries that share borders to maintain embassies in each other's capitals. It makes sense for countries who do a lot of business with each other to maintain embassies. It even makes sense for powerful countries very far away, with relatively little interest in a poor country (Japan?), to keep an office open there. But what could possibly justify the enormous neighborhood-dwarfing fortress the United States maintains in Sopocachi, La Paz? My theory? It's 50% a show of force, as in: "remember we're in charge and will crush you if you cross us," and 50% a strategic operations center for fomenting secession of gas-rich, Evo-hating Santa Cruz province and/or planning a coup. There really are CIA dudes in there planning sketchy and dangerous things, and they're paranoid. The State Department knows it didn't need to go quite so far in securing the building, but, you know, "in a post-9/11 world you can never be too safe," yada yada... and besides, it doesn't hurt to remind the Bolivians who's boss.

PS - No photos for obvious reasons. I'm willing to criticize, but don't particularly want to see the interrogation room...