US security: blunt response

The European Commission this week is reviewing a proposal by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would require all EU visitors to the United States to register their details on a US government database at least 72 hours prior to departure.  The proposal, which would not come into effect until January 2009, would impact millions of business and leisure travellers each year.  While the scheme is well intentioned and designed to address a real security risk, it suggests that DHS still has not managed adequately to apply risk management principles to counter-terror policy.

DHS's latest proposal is designed to address concerns within the US intelligence community that international terror groups may use the US 'visa waiver' programme -- which applies to the citizens of many EU members -- to smuggle extremist operatives into the United States.  Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has characterised the plan as a high-tech solution to this threat, which would preserve the waiver scheme, while ensuring that US entrants are adequately scrutinised. 

However, there are a number of serious objections to the plan:

• Business irritant. Although registration under the scheme would cover multiple US trips by individuals over a 24-month period, it will still inhibit last-minute business travel.
• Tit-for-tat. If the Commission determines that the screening process qualifies as a 'visa', it could impose a similar requirement on US visitors to the EU.
• Unfriendly. It will contribute to the widely held sense, internationally, that Washington is less welcoming to overseas visitors.
• Ethnic profiling? If various passengers with common Arab or Muslim names find themselves excluded from admission to the United States, there is certain to be a negative media storm, further undermining Washington's image overseas.

However, the main problem with the proposal is that it adopts a heavy-handed solution to a problem that defies easy resolution.  It is unlikely that the proposed screening system -- or even the reinstitution of a visa requirement -- would be able to prevent terrorists from entering the country.  If instituted, the scheme would merely force al-Qaida or associated groups to recruit prospective terrorists with 'clean records' -- a fairly easy countermeasure.  In return for this negligible security gain, it would generate very significant additional economic and political costs.  This violates the most basic risk management principles.

Bureaucratic overkill

DHS has been a serial offender, in this respect.  Recent failures to adequately cost security measures include:

• The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) has progressively tightened security measures along the US-Canadian border -- including the imposition of a passport requirement.  The delays this has caused to bilateral traffic are estimated to cost the Canadian trucking industry alone approximately 290 million Canadian dollars ($286 million) each year.  The costs in other commercial delays, compliance fees, lost just-in-time delivery traffic, and reduced leisure travel easily run into the billions of dollars.
• The Department's $1.699 billion Homeland Security Grant Program for the 2008 fiscal year requires states to use at least 25% of the award to address the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).  Again, IEDs are a real potential terror risk in certain major cities.  However, forcing small, Midwestern cities to spend funds on these measures is likely a waste of taxpayer funds.

Unwieldy mandates and poorly costed grants are a problem endemic to the federal bureaucracy, and not confined to DHS.  However, DHS must take care, lest its counter-terror measures cause nearly as much economic and political damage as they are intended to prevent.