To the uninitiated, the Department of Homeland Security
sounds as if it is concerned with the land borders and the domestic
security of the United States. That is far from the case. You cannot
ensure U.S. national security without becoming heavily
involved in international relations. America does not want to be
isolated, and it does not make sense to try to cut the country off
from the rest of the world. That is why it is gratifying that we have
built such strong relationships with the European Union and its
member states on security issues.
One aspect of those relationships that is demanding more attention
is the increasing role of the European Parliament in the EU decision making
process.We should encourage more delegations from the U.S. Congress to travel to
Europe for exchanges with European Parliamentarians to identify further areas in
which we can work together.We should also strive to correct possible misunderstandings,
for example that our stricter border security measures are intended to diminish
the flow of foreign visitors to the United States.
It is very important that we communicate
a message in Europe and around
the globe that we welcome business travelers,
students and tourists. We are delighted
that, despite the security
challenges, international travel from Europe
has actually increased, a trend we
hope will continue. The Department of
Homeland Security is working hard not
just to strengthen security, but also to let
people know that we want them to come
to America with a minimum amount of
difficulty.
We recognize that, in our initial attempt
to enhance security by tightening
visa requirements, we almost cut off the
flow of foreign students that are so important
to us in expanding democracy
across the globe. So we have tried to address
that problem by improving our
systems without diminishing security.
And we have made significant improvements.
For instance, even in Saudi Arabia,
one of the most difficult cases, about
80 percent of visas are now issued within
two weeks of the date of application.We
have set up a 24-hour response team to
address problems at our ports of entry
encountered by students who already
have visas, to make sure that the problems
are not simply technicalities.
We know that there have also been
problems for business travelers from
Britain and other EU countries. Some
have felt that they have been treated
rudely on entering the United States, and
that, while security measures may be
necessary, there has not been a welcoming
atmosphere at U.S. ports of entry.We
have undertaken a new initiative to address
these problems, to provide some
room for discretion at the point of entry
and to ensure that people are not
turned away simply because of a technical
violation.
We shall continue to improve our
procedures, without jeopardizing security.
This is the right thing to do, but we
also do not want to lose any competitive
advantage. Whenever we lose business
conferences to London, for example, because
of the difficulty of our visa system,
we are encouraged to work even harder
to solve these problems.
In fact, the legislation that set up the
Department of Homeland Security
wisely stipulated that the department
must secure the borders and transportation
systems of the United States from
terrorists in a way that is consistent with
the lawful flow of commerce. We take
that commitment very seriously. So as
we introduce biometric identification requirements
at our borders, we shall be
closely monitoring the possible effects
on commercial flows.We shall look at issues
like the length of waiting times for
visitors at the point of entry and the rate
of false positive biometric readings.We
are already carefully studying the working
of the Advance Passenger Information
System (APIS), which helps us
identify airline passengers before they
reach the United States, to see how it is
affecting airlines and airports. So there is
a built-in requirement at each step to ensure
that we evaluate the economic consequences
of our actions.
As we develop our procedures, each
step seems to prepare the way for the
next. In order to enhance security, we
want more information on individual
airline passengers. Once we have compiled
that information, for example
through biometric identity checks and
the examination of past travel records,
we can make travel easier for the vast
majority of people who present no risks.
“Some European business
travelers have felt there
has not been a welcoming
atmosphere at U.S.
points of entry”
We can introduce an international
registered travel program that allows
regular travelers who have already been
cleared to pass through security more
quickly. Although there are still some
difficulties over the necessary exchanges
of information among governments, we
might be able to set up a pilot program
later this year. We are in a transitional
period. We are enhancing security, but
we shall soon reach the point at which
we can actually start facilitating travel
and reducing the burden on business.
Of course, we still have problems to
resolve - as was demonstrated by a recent
incident in which a passenger on the terrorist-
watch list was discovered aboard
an Air France flight on its way to the
United States. In that case, Air France
did not catch the error in advance, and
the media started demanding how such a
situation could be avoided in future.
One answer is that we have earlier
exchanges of information on passenger
lists.
“The various branches of
the U.S. government are
operating over 94
different terrorist
screening operations”
We do not, however, want the burden
of carrying out such checks to fall
on the private sector - they should be the
responsibility of governments, not of the
airlines. This is another area in which the
United States and the European Union
have to work together. We have also issued
a new set of air cargo rules that for
the first time require private carriers to
carry out a degree of physical inspection
of freight loaded into aircraft holds.
Here again, we shall have to examine the
cost to the private carriers, but we plan
to extend the system.
Domestically, we are working toward
better ways of establishing an individual’s
identity. That does not mean introducing
a national identity card, because
the law prohibits that, but it does mean
that we want to have enough information
to focus on bad people and lessen
the burden on good people. The establishment
of national, rather than state
standards for drivers’ licenses would be a
good way to start.
This kind of approach, of course,
will require safeguards to protect individual
privacy and offer redress if people
are wrongly identified as suspicious.We
have already created a civil liberties
board, as recommended by the 9/11
Commission Report, which is taking an
inventory of what the government is
doing to protect private data.
We have also implemented a recommendation
by the Commission that we
improve coordination among government
terrorist screening procedures.We
found out that the various branches of
the government are operating over 94
different terrorist screening operations.
Visitors to the Pentagon, for instance, to
the Department of Homeland Security
or even to a national park are all likely to
have to submit to different screening
procedures using different databases.
Even within the Department of Homeland
Security, the guards are using different
kinds of biometric scans.
It is essential that we improve coordination
and information exchanges in
this area. It is very important that if we
find a potential terrorist trying to enter a
national park, we give that information
to the State Department, our inspectors
at ports of entry and other departments.
And while we are going to try to do a
better job within our own government, a
similar effort needs to be made at international
level.
We shall not achieve a satisfactory
international system within the next six
months, but we must move in that direction.
We need common standards for
biometrics, and we applaud the European
Commission for its aggressive role
in provisionally identifying finger scans
as a useful biometric technique. Once we
have developed common standards, we
should move on to information sharing,
so that if one country identifies a terrorist
risk the information should be provided
to any allied country that might
need it.
This is totally against the bureaucratic
culture of our government departments,
as well as those of other
countries. But I believe that it is what the
future holds.We shall have to work to resolve
delicate issues of data protection
and the need not to disclose sensitive
investigative data. But I believe that
our citizens expect us to solve these
problems.
The United States and the European
Union must also develop our exchanges
of information on science and technology.
The United States, for instance, is
exploring how to protect civilian aircraft
against portable ground-launched missiles.
If different kinds of research are
being conducted for this purpose in Europe,
then we should be exchanging information
about our respective efforts.
Again, with respect to air cargo, it would
place a great burden on the aviation industry
if Europe and the United States
adopted different rules, or regulations
that clashed with each other.
The common threat of terrorism
that we both face is not going to go away
in the foreseeable future. For the moment,
we have a number of different
viewpoints as to how to fight that threat.
But I believe that these differences will
lessen, and that the terrorist threat will
ultimately enhance our cooperation on
security, bring us closer together and
strengthen our overall relationship.
Asa Hutchinson heads the Homeland Security Practice at Venable LLP in Washington D.C. At the
time of this writing he was Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security (BTS) at the
Department of Homeland Security (January 2003 to March 2005). He was previously Administrator
of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). From 1997 to 2001, he was a member of the
U.S. House of Representatives from Arkansas, serving on the House Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Judiciary Committee.
go to top
