Architecture And the universAlity of the AmericAn creed

dmitriy yAkubov

Dale CliffordMary-Lou ArscottDr. Kiron Skinner

Thesis CoordinatorSchool of Architecture AdvisorDietrich College Advisor

Carnegie Mellon University

Fall 2012 - Spring 2013

School of Architecture Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences

Dmitriy Yakubov

Architecture and the Universality of the American Creed

Table of Contents

i. Aknowledgements

ii. Abstract

iii. Introduction

Part I: Defining the Field of Study

PartII: Architecture of the US Embassy Through Time

Part III: Emabassies as Targets

Appendix: Annotated Bibliography

i. Aknowledgemets

This inter-disciplinary study taht was made possible through the collaboration between the School of Architecture in the College of Fine Arts and the School of Decision Sciences in the Dietrich College for Humanities and Social Sciences. It would not be possible without the assistance of Dr. Joseph E. Devine,Stephen R. Lee, Dale Clifford, Mary-Lou Arscott,and Dr. Kiron Skinner.

ii. Abstract

This work examines the relation between architecture and American foreign policy. Architecture has played a vital role in shaping American diplomacy in the years following the end of the Second World War. That role, however, has diminished with the rise of the threat of global terrorism, the various attacks on US embassies across the world shaping new security standards which have severally restricted the design of new embassies.Architecture was used as a central tool in the ideological and geo-political struggle against the Soviet Union, modernism becoming the American brand, symbolizing democracy, freedom, and progress. Modernism, however, fell out of favor with the State Department by the late 1970’s and as the Soviet Union fad-ed from the world stage, so did the emphasis on architecture as an ideological tool. It is the goal of this work to identify design strategies for the diplomacy of the future.

ii. Introduction“Compared to other man-made objects, Architecture is the closest to politics. Think of to whom a building belongs, the

aesthetics and culture it represents.”

-- Ai Weiwei, Make it Simple, 2011

With the struggle of the people of the Middle East for the right to choose their government, colloquially known as the Arab Spring, unfolds before us, the idea of the supremacy of democra-cy over other forms of government once again is at the center of discussion. In the rhethoric of the United States this issue has hardly ever been in question. Since William Tyler Paige had put down in writing the American Creed in 1917, and arguably long before then, much of the US policy directed towards other nations has been based not only on the principle that the Creed is the cornerstone of our nation, but on the belief that “those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes” are held universally as the basis for gov-ernance by all human beings across cultural, religious, and philosophical divides. This idea has been used to frame and subsequently justify American military action in Vietnam, Kuwait, Kosovo, and Iraq among many others. The premise that a political or ideological dogma can be applied universal-ly and without exception appears ignorant at best and arrogant at worst. In recent years this way of thinking has generally been associated with the Neo-Conservatives’ self-labeled crusade to spread democracy, but throughout history the global universality of the American Creed has been unques-tioningly held by both wings of the American political system. Today, this belief still governs much of US foreign policy.

American politicians have not been the only ones who have asserted universality of dog-mas. The International Style in architecture that emerged in the 1920’s and 1930’s and remained a dominant style well into the late 1960’s was based, as the name suggests, that it rose out of ideas that spanned over cultural differences. Many architects who practiced in the International Style are still studied and championed as masters of the profession. While the International Style has proven to be just that – a style or a fashion that with time became obsolete, at its core was a basic principle that remains relevant to this day: that architecture is a language capable of closing cultural rifts and bringing people and ideas closer together. This quality of architecture positions it as the best lens through which to explore the validity behind the claim to the American Creed’s universality.

For a long time design and architecture have been used as a way to brand national identity. In some cases they have become exports in countries’ economies, placing raising small countries, like Den-mark to world-wide prominence and recognition. In the context of branding a set of political ideals, architecture is directly employed in institutional buildings. Internationally, these are primarily repre-sented by consulates, embassies, and diplomatic missions. It makes sense, therefore that this build-ing typology specifically should be the focus of examining how architecture can begin to convey the American Creed across cultural divides. The necessity of this exploration is underscored by the events that placed at the center of international attention, both historical such as the 15 year refuge of Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty in the American embassy in Budapest from 1956 to 1971 and the Ira-nian Hostage Crisis at the Tehran embassy in 1979, as well as current events including the violence that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In light of these most recent events, in the broader scope of the Arab Spring, and the ongoing strug-gles for democracy in other parts of the globe, such as Russia, and with the role of the United States on the world stage shifting, international politics are shifting radically from where they stood only fifteen or twenty years ago. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that democracy does not grow out of a gun barrel. It is imperative to re-evaluate American foreign policy, and, perhaps, the principles and assumptions that have been guiding it up to this point. It is the goal of this project to come to some conclusion with regards to the claim that the American Creed is universally accept-ed and applicable. The architecture that the US uses to project its ideals abroad has to either promote the universality of the American Creed, or celebrate its uniqueness, because ultimately it will be architecture that will begin the conversations to bridge the gaping divides that exist across culture, that will bring us closer to understanding others and others closer to understanding us.

Part I: Defining the Field of Study“I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humani-ty for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.” -- William Tyler Page, The American Creed, 1917

The purpose of this section is to develop a logic and a set of definitions which will formulate the question of focus and define the area of study. Ultimately this means exmining the claim of the American Creed to universality and determine how the role of architecture in diplomacy is affect-ed by this claim.

1. Is the American Creed indeed universal?In principle the ideals of the American Creed are universal. In practice, however, these principles have a set of relatively narrow pre-requisites. These include, among others, civilized society, and rule of law. This is to say, the principles of the American Creed can in theory transcend cultural divides and reach people across the world. This becomes possible only when the all, not just some of the pre-requisites are met.

2. Is America exceptional or unique?Yes, however, the American exceptionalism should not be confused with American hegemony. The democratic system of the United States features the unique conditions necessary for the American Creed to have taken route. For a brief of time following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States enjoyed a period of American hegemony which left US as the only major player on the world stage. Since then, however, other players have emerged, including multi-national and non-governmental entities. While US continues to play a central role in world affairs, it is shifting rapidly.

3. What are the implications of the answers to the above questions for US foreign policy?Unlike authoritarian regimes and also unlike most other democratic nations, in which parliaments oversee diplomatic practice, but exert little influence on it, the United States boasts diplomacy in which an elected congress plays a key role. Since the end of the Second World War, US foreign policy has been driven by the non-partisan belief that the American Creed is a set of principles that is appreciated by people world-wide, regardless of their social and political situation. The result of this large misguided belief has been an aggressive export of American-style democracy, particularly to developing nations and dictatorial regimes.

4. What is the purpose of the Foreign Service?The Foreign Service represents the corps of US diplomats withing the State Department serving in posts and missions overseas. The self-stated mission the Foreign Service is to promote peace, support prosperity, and protect American citizens while advancing the interests of the US abroad.

5. How does the role of the Foreign Service fit in with the general trends of US foreign policy?The mission of the Foreign Service stands in contrast to the general trends of US foreign policy. While the international perception of US foreign policy has been tarnished by either open military action or subterfuge against foreign regimes, often times democratically elected. Through this the Foreign Service has stood out as a beacon for diplomacy, conflict resolution and cooperation.

6. What role does the embassy have in achieving the objec-tives of US foreign policy and the Foreign Service?Embassies are symbolically charged buildings uniquely defined by domestic politics, foreign affairs, and a complicated set of representational requirements. The embassy is designed to promote international cooperation and diplomacy and widely praised as goodwill gesture. Newly constructed American embassies have been hailed as evidence of American commitment and goodwill.

7. What role does architecture play in achieving those objectives?The modern architecture of American embassies introduced in the late 1940s, has come to symbolize the openness of public diplomacy. Moreover, the Modernism became the contrast to Soviet state architecture. Architectural representation has branded America as an energetic, open, and innovative nation.

8. What is responsible for the evolution of the embassy?

Over the past four decades the embassy building program has been heavily influenced by changes in global security. The rise of terrorism and emergence of terrorist organizations as well as other non-state actors on the international stage has exposed the vulnerability of diplomatic missions. This, in turn, has led to re-organization within the State Department and standardization of embassy design and construction which largely hampered the design process.

9. Question of Focus:

What direction should the evolution of the embassy take?

Part II: Architecture of the US Embassy through Time“No country can exercise political world leadership without exercising a degree of cultural leadership as well. Whether consciously or not, the US Government has now made US architecture a vehicle of our cultural leadership.”

--Architectural Forum, March 1953

One of the most interesting aspects of the Post-War cultural debate is the disconnect between the perception of modern art and modern architecture. While modern art was denounced by American politicians as socialist and shunned in favor of classical art, modern architecture became a symbol of American democracy. Modernism represented newness openness, abstraction, ambiguity, and technical innovation. It represented United States as an energetic, future-oriented nation.One of the primary reasons for the emergence of Modernism as the defining style of diplomatic architecture for the United States in the Post-War period was a direct outcome of the Truman Doctrine and the determination to combat the spread of Communism. Once it became clear that the Cold War would be first and foremost an ideological confrontation, the US embassy needed to be not just different from the Soviet one, it needed to be the direct opposite of it. As the Stalinist take on Classicism became the architecture of State for the Soviets, the choice for Modernism as the symbol of freedom was solidified.

Tangier, Morocco

Former US Legation, currently the American Legation Museum. Acquired in 1821 as a gift of the Sultan of Morocco, it stands as the oldest diplomatic property continuously owned by the United States.

Prior to 1926 United States built only a handful of its own embassies abroad. Instead, The State Department purchased or leased existing buildings and re-purposed them for its use. It wasn’t until the mid-1920s that Congress recognized the necessi-ty to upgrade representation abroad

1926

Havana, Cuba

Harrison & Abramovitz.Along with the US Embassy in Rio de Janeiro (completed in the same year by the same firm) this was the first modern embassy built by the Foreign Building Office.

During this period Congress did not use tax dollars to fund the FBO. Instead it funneled money being collected for the WWII Lend-Lease programs into the acquisition of prime real estate to be used for future embassy sites.

1952

New Dehli, India

Edward Durell Stone.The commission of this symbolic building in the Indian capi-tal meant to represent the long term commitment of the United States to India and an attempt to get a reciprocal commitment of the neutral country in the Cold War

The selection of nations and cities to receive new American embassies delivered by FBO can be understood in the context of the politics of time period and foreign policy directives set out by State Department as part of the Truman Doctrine. These includ-ed setting up a global array of military bases, establishment of strategic defense pacts, economic aid to the rebuilding nations of Europe, dissemination of information, and the containment of the Communist Block.

1959

Hague, the Netherlands

Marcel Breuer.Historical context was the key issue in this project as the new building faced a historical square

As African colonies, beginning with Ghana, gained indepen-dence from Europe, 47 new nations joined the world community, prompting an expansion of the embassy building program

1959

London, United Kingdom

Eero Saarinen.Saarinen’s design was the winning entry in a competition that in-cluded eight prestigious firms. This represented the continuation of practice started with the New Delhi embassy of holding public competition for FBO contracts.

1960

Dublin, Ireland

John M. JohansenThe project commissioned in 1957 became emblematic of the struggle for the embassy building program between Congress and the State Department. Construction began only following President Kennedy’s involvement.

1964

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Hartman-Cox ArchitectsThe project represents both the impact of the Beirut bombing on embassy design as well as the departure from modernism as the architectural style of American diplomacy.

1983

Moscow, Russia

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Gruzen PartnersEmbassy compound. Partially completed in 1985, the chancery building (sand colored structure in the background) was complet-ed in 2000

1986

Lima, Peru

ArquitectonicaThe Inman Standards severely tied up the architect working on an FBO project. Lima stands out as one of the most imposing citadel-like diplomatic missions.

1992

London, United Kingdom

Kieran TimberlakeThe winning design selected from 37 submissions. Scheduled to be completed by 2017, it will be the new home for American dip-lomatic mission, leaving the fate Saarinen’s building in Governor Square in question

2010

Part III: Embassies as Targets

The 1970’s saw a rise of international terrorism across the globe. US installations and citizens overseas became targets for radicals including Islamist and left-wing militant groups. Soon, US diplomatic missions became targets as well. Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, America found itself once again in an ideological struggle, this time around, however, with non-state adversaries.

November 4, 1979 Tehran, Iran

In November of 1979 a mob of radically oriented students seized the American embassy in Tehran in what became a pivotal point in the American-Iranian relations. 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The implications of the seizure, however, had a far reaching effect on the way United States conducted foreign relations from their diplomatic missions around the world. What the takeover of the compound in the Iranian capital did first and foremost was to dispel the long-standing law of international diplomacy that diplomats were im-mune to arrest and detention and that the embassy compounds were a sovereign sanctuary.

1979

April 18, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon

On April 18th 1983 the US embassy building in Beirut was struck by a suicide car bomb. 63 people were killed, including 17 Americans. Islamic Jihad took the responsibility for the attack. It marked a beginning of attacks on American installations overseas by radical Islamic groups. The attack was followed by a similar attack later that year on the US Marine Corps barracks that took 299 lives. Both attacks exposed the vulnerability of US overseas installations. As a direct result, the security protocol for diplo-matic missions was heavily result. New construction codes known as Inman Standards largely redefined how embassies have been designed and constructed since 1983.

1983

August 7, 1998 Dar Es Salaam, TanzaniaNairobi, Kenya

On August 7th, 1998 a coordinated suicide bombing attack by Al-Qaeda terrorists targeted East African embassies of the United States in Kenya and Tanzania. The attacks led to 223 deaths.As part of the aftermath of the attacks, the State Department reorganized the FBO into the new Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO). The newly reorganized bureau drew up standard specifications aimed at speeding produc-tion, controlling costs and increasing security at new embassies worldwide. The shift to a standardized program has take the building program in a new and very different direction.

1998

September 11, 2012 Benghazi, Libya

On September 11th, 2012 a heavily armed group attacked the US embassy compound in the Benghazi. The attack killed 4 Americans, including US Am-bassador J. Christopher Stevens.The attack underscored the chaotic nature of the political situation in Post-Gaddafi Libya, but also brought up the vulnerability of diplomatic mis-sions overseas. Questions regarding the safety of Foreign Service staff serving in hostile posts and embassy security are once again at the center of discussion.

2012

Appendix: Annotated Bibliography

Argo. Dir. Ben Affleck. Perf. Kyle Chandler, Bryan Cranston. Warner Bros., 2012. Film. An artistic rendering of a rescue mission in 1979 to free the American hostages of the Iranian Revolution. The film will be viewed to examine how American public deals with the events that centered on American diplomats but are begining to fade into history. The film is of particular interest in the context of its release coinsiding with the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi.

Farber, David R.. What they think of us: international perceptions of the United States since 9/11. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Print. A collection of essays on various international perspectives of the US. Selected readings were used to arrive at a conclusion regarding the image US should seek to project though its diplomatic architecture

Fukuyama, Francis. The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press ;, 1992. Print.Fukuyama’s work was written in the post-Cold War euphoria in 1992 when American hegemony seemed guaranteed and US stood alone at the top of the world. The views in presented in the book have long proved to be idealic at best it does, however, provide an insight into the mood and thinking both political and historic of the paradime shift following the end of the Cold War. Parallels were drawn to observe the possibility ignorance and blindness following the paradime shift in the early 2000’s

Lennon, Alexander T.. What does the world want from America? international perspectives on U.S. foreign policy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. Print.A collection of essays on various international perspectives of the US. Selected readings were used to arrive at a conclusion regarding the image US should seek to project though its diplomatic architecture

Loeffler, Jane C.. The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Print.This work is to serve as the cornerstone of the thesis research. It discusses American embassy building program from the end of the Sec-ond World War through the end of 1990’s. This work covers both the architectural manifestation of the built space as well as the political agendas that were behind the construction of specific exmples of diplomatic buildings around the world. The thesis work aims to contin-ue building on the foundation laid down by this book and carry it forward to address the global political and architectural circumstances facing America in the post 9-11 world.

Shafer, Byron E.. Is America Different?: a New Look at American Exceptionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press ;, 1991. Print. The work examines a prevalent though a long-debated premise that the United States is defined by a unique set of historic, geographic, and political circumstances that give it an exceptional place in the international community. Selected sections of the book will be used to arrive at a conclusion regarding the image US should seek to project though its diplomatic architecture

Sombart, Werner. Why is There No Socialism in the United States?. White Plains, N.Y.: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1976. Print. This is a work of a German political philosopher examining why unlike European democracies, United States did not have a socialist past. Selected chapters of the book will be examined to determine, through a different lens, if the claim of American exceptionalism holds up.

Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print. Zakaria’s work is largely a response to Fukuyama’s writing. Written in 2008 it seeks to explain the new paradime shift to a multi-polar world. In the scope of the thesis work thisbook was used a primary source for identyfying America’s role in the international community today.