Embassy Embarrassment
Abandoned properties turn Embassy Row into an avenue of neglect.
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Ah, Embassy Row. Just the sound of those words conjures glamorous images of glittering evenings in those grand homes lining Massachusetts Avenue. The stately residences are supposed to represent the beauty, power and majesty of the nations whose representatives occupy them. But by the looks of things at ramshackle properties owned by the governments of Malawi, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, Argentina and Malaysia, you'd be forgiven for thinking that those countries are down at the heels.
The blight was catalogued in Sunday's Post by writer Paul Schwartzman. Some properties were ditched for better digs (Pakistan and the Philippines). Some were forgotten when things fell apart back home (the former Yugoslavia) or when the ambassador got a promotion (Togo). And some fell into disrepair after a war (Congo). The District hits residents with increased tax bills to get them to do something with their abandoned eyesores. But because those dilapidated embassies and diplomatic residences are legally considered foreign soil, the usual levers of power are not at the city's disposal.
The State Department has the option of stripping the derelict properties of their diplomatic status. That's what it did in 2006 to the Philippines' former embassy; the Philippines now must contend with a tax bill of $138,961. Just why the Philippines got singled out and not, say, Pakistan, which surely can afford to do something with the embassy it vacated four years ago, is a mystery. State Department spokesman Rob McInturff told us that "each embassy has a different story behind it," and that the action taken against the Philippines was "a last resort." Mr. McInturff pointed out that such a move could open the United States to retaliation that could expose its embassies to local taxes and security concerns. No one wants to cause trouble for U.S. missions overseas. But the State Department has to do something about derelict properties that give portions of Embassy Row the look of skid row.
Shame ought to be one motivator. As Mr. Schwartzman reported, the staff of the Togolese Embassy trooped over to the former ambassador's residence on Crittenden Street NW to put things in order after neighbors complained. As a Togolese Embassy official said, "You don't like to have thought that you let it go. It's a reflection on the country of Togo." Would that others had the same concern.


