Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

While it is fortunate that the recent case of arson at the Chinese consulate in San Francisco did not result in injury to the diplomatic staff, the attack has raised serious security questions regarding diplomatic facilities.

It is difficult to determine whether a deranged or angry group, a criminal organization or a group with links to terrorist movements committed this act. The amateurish nature of the attack, which was carried out by pouring flammable liquid onto the consulate's door and setting it on fire, argues against the probability that the attack was carried out by trained militants, making it likely that the source of the attack was local.

Although the current calls for increased security are wise and the US should review its security policies regarding foreign diplomatic facilities, it is important to recognize the very real damage an overemphasis on security can do to the core purpose of a consulate or embassy.

Embassies and consulates are by their very nature one of the primary points of contact for citizens and foreign nationals alike. Not only does a consulate provide a number of vital services for its own nationals, but it can also be an excellent way to help forge beneficial political, commercial and personal ties with the host nation's citizens. However, such goals can be rendered difficult to achieve in the face of restrictive security policies.

In the US, the emphasis on security after the 9/11 and other terror attacks has had the unfortunate consequence of restricting the ability to citizens to easily enter many government facilities. Many measures such as anti-bomb barriers and security checkpoints produce a less welcoming feel to the facilities they are designed to protect. Even individuals with legitimate business can find it difficult to freely make use of these facilities' services.

For these reasons, attacks on diplomatic missions are not simply attacks on the physical building and the personnel staffing it, but attacks on the very concept of a diplomatic mission. By forcing the implementation of more restrictive security policies, an attack can critically impair the ability of the diplomatic staff to have the free and unrestricted meetings, both with their own nationals and those of the host nation, that are so vital to the effective functioning of a diplomatic mission.

Of course, it is important to note the difference between legal demonstrations and the recent criminal actions. Nearly every consulate and embassy has been the focus of one or more public demonstrations. In many cases, these demonstrations can be quite confrontational affairs. However, a political demonstration, unlike an actual attack, does not usually pose a threat to the consulate's staff and visitors. In fact, such demonstrations can assist the consular staff in gauging local public opinion, although it is wise to remember that more than a few demonstrations have been staged affairs.

Conversely, an attack on a diplomatic facility is often the action of a group that cannot gain widespread public acceptance. In that case, adding onerous security measures would fulfill rather than thwart the desires of the attackers, granting them public recognition that is far beyond what they deserve.

This does not mean that the FBI and US Department of State should not take this incident very seriously. The perpetrators of this action should be hunted down to the best of  the US ability. Equally, it is important that the US and China alike should not fall into the trap of allowing this attack to define their future security policies regarding diplomatic installations.

There are a wide range of security measures that can be taken to protect diplomatic facilities without harming their ability to function. Most notably, law enforcement agencies should continue to carefully monitor the activities of the terrorist and extremist groups which are most capable of launching large-scale attacks. By doing so, it becomes possible to warn the consular staff of any serious threat, allowing the two nations to determine what the most effective reaction to the threat would be.

Every nation should remember the core purpose of its diplomatic facilities and should not allow acts of terror to thwart that purpose.

To the terrorist and criminal alike the sight of a consulate that has been closed due to security concerns is proof of their victory. In this case, it should be made plain that no such victory is in the offing by ensuring that San Francisco's Chinese consulate can remain safely open to conduct its vital business.

The author is a freelance writer based in Corona, California. charlesgray109@gmail.com