World View

What's Good for Security Isn't Necessarily Good for America

Columnist Paul Raines argues that visa restrictions and other measures come with a big price.

By Paul Raines

September 10, 2007 — CSO —

In testifying before Congress in 1953, the then CEO of General Motors, Charles Wilson, said "…for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."

The same could be said about many Americans’ attitude toward security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.  Military spending was increased, the Department of Homeland Security was created and corporate security departments found new funds and respect as they responded to the perceived increased threat of terrorism.  What was good for security was thought to be good for America and vice versa.  Now six years on from the 9/11 attacks this increase in security is beginning to erode America’s larger interests.

For example, President Bush recently signed a new U.S. visa law requiring visitors from 26 developed nations whose citizens do not at present require visas, to give 48 hours advance notice of their intent to travel to the U.S.  This includes the citizens of some of America’s strongest western allies.  In addition, the law requires that all air and sea borne cargo containers bound for the United States must be inspected in foreign ports before being shipped to the United States.  This all bodes well for security, but research has shown that inspecting every container in a large cargo ship could add up to 70 man-days to the time needed to ship cargo to the U.S.  These added costs and time will no doubt eventually be passed along to American consumers.

Naturally, European business groups and the European Commission complained loudly through diplomatic channels in an effort to prevent the law’s passage.  Anyone who has worked in an international business knows that oftentimes the reasons for travel arrive unexpectedly and not within a convenient, U.S.-mandated 48 hour advance notice period.  In addition, business travel is a frequent and necessary occurrence and will now be hindered through the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. 

The European Union has let it be known that it will retaliate by passing similar legislation requiring identical steps against U.S. passengers and U.S. cargo ships bound for Europe.  Such tit-for-tat retaliations between the U.S. and EU, each trying to out-macho the other about who takes security more seriously will, in the end, damage existing business relations and thwart new business opportunities.

Even before the law the view of the U.S. amongst many European travelers and business groups was not positive.  In the recent past, American intercepts of SWIFT’s international baking transactions and the sharing of personal details of air passengers to the U.S. was seen as a violation of the European Data Protection Act and a gross infringement on the privacy of EU citizens. This latest requirement will do nothing to repair Europeans’ already bad perceptions of the American security community.

• Email
• Print
• Comments
• Digg This
• SlashDot