Diplomats do not always get immunity: I lost several colleagues to terrorist attacks. But the US must show restraint in Libya
What are we to make of the murder of the American ambassador and members of his staff in Benghazi? What will be the consequences?
The murder of a serving ambassador is deeply shocking, not only for the obvious human reasons, but because it is a blow against the fabric of the international community in which we all live. The immunity that ambassadors enjoy is not simply a matter of duty-free alcohol and avoiding parking fines. It is essential for communication between governments in a world of nation states which are often hostile to each other if not actually at war.
There have, of course, always been such murders, and I have myself been close to some of them. In Aden, I lost a colleague and close friend, shot down in the street. Shortly after I left Athens, Britain's defence attaché was murdered by Greek terrorists as he drove to the embassy using a route I had used a hundred times myself. When I served as an ambassador, I got used to an armed guard trailing around with me all day. I used to ask myself "is it really necessary?" – in peaceful Luxembourg, for example. But the British ambassador in The Hague had been murdered by the IRA.
Most Libyans will be shocked for other reasons, as well. The obligations of hospitality, of which Libyans are acutely conscious, have been flouted. America deserved well of Libya during the overthrow of Gaddafi last year, and US Ambassador Chris Stevens played his part in that. Libyans will blame a small minority of extremists: religious fanatics who have already outraged public opinion (for example, by their desecration of Sufi shrines, the tombs of saints, which are dear to the people).
The Libyan government will be acutely embarrassed. Although normal security in Libya is not bad, the Libyan government has yet to take control of the so-called militias, fighters who took up arms during the revolution last year. They are not in revolt against the government; yet, neither does the government enjoy the monopoly of force. Libya has, quite understandably, refused permission for international security companies to operate there, learning the lesson of Iraq. But this means that responsibility for security rests entirely with the state – and events, particularly the latest events in Benghazi, have shown that they are not yet up to it.
The background to the Benghazi murders may be complicated, with several factors at work. Part of the story was popular indignation at an American film insulting Islam and its prophet, which caused demonstrations, presumably coordinated, in other Muslim countries, as well. Another part may have been the killing a few months ago of Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaida's Libyan second in command, by the US. His death was announced by al-Qaida on the anniversary of 9/11 with a call for revenge. More generally, there is deep bitterness throughout the Arab and Muslim world against America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and over the Palestinian question.
What happens next? Everything will depend on the reactions in Libya and the United States. Libya must take robust and effective action, while retaining the democratic standards it has fought so hard to achieve. This could be the testing time: the Libyan people know what has to be done and will respond to decent leadership.
The US will have to show restraint, insisting on a proper reaction from Libya, but not overwhelming it with disproportionate force. This would not be easy at any time, but is least of all so now when everything in Washington is done with an eye on electoral politics – as Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's contemptible knee-jerk reaction makes all too clear.
• Editor's note: A missplaced parenthesis added by an editor implied that Othe author had had an armed guard while he was UK ambassador to Libya in 1984; this was not, in fact, the case, although he did have a bodyguard at other times in his diplomatic career. The article was amended at 10am (ET), on 13 September 2012