Can Obama tear down this wall?

Ted Piccone argues that Obama’s approach to democracy and human rights requires a difficult and delicate balancing act in the Global Post:

As pragmatic politicians who know that it usually takes compromises to get things done in Washington, Obama and Clinton want to preserve their ability to maneuver through human rights minefields on the world stage without being held hostage to inflated rhetoric that could expose them to charges of hypocrisy. At the same time, they have laid down an important marker that they will treat these issues not as isolated causes but as part of an integrated, interdependent whole.

…solutions to the inevitable conflicts between human rights principles and hard national security interests will be hatched on a case-by-case basis, with an open willingness to try new approaches when old tactics fall short. This is wise, given that the political context in each country is unique and requires tailored strategies. This means our diplomats in embassies around the world really need to do their homework and get out of their secure compounds and cocktail receptions. It also means a much more well-resourced development policy with a fortified battery of analysts, practitioners and aid experts who can sustain the long-term work of investing in legal reforms and strengthening civil society.

David Shorr at Democracy Arsenal pithily calls this “the walk-and-chew-gum problem” because it requires the US government to secure contradictory objectives at once in many countries: pushing for political reform without sacrificing cooperation in important areas. I think the more difficult challenge is reversing the Fortress America mentality at the State Department. The Fortress America mentality prioritizes security above all other objectives. In dangerous countries, it often means that embassy officials have very little contact with the society in which they are living.

I was in Ghana a few years ago, a very safe country. I drove by the recently-completed Fortress America in Accra with two Ghanians.  It looked like a prison: high walls, lots of security. We had a pretty interesting discussion about the embassy. One said it projected arrogance because of its size and menacing architecture. The other Ghanian said it projected fear because the embassy was walled off from the rest of the city. Both points seem accurate to me: in my opinion, arrogance and fear is a good way of describing US foreign policy since 9/11. It’s hard to have “tailored strategies” when you are walled off from the country where you are working. Can Obama tear down the embassy walls?