Homeland security is a global mission. From securing the
border to protecting global supply chains, virtually every
aspect of preventing terrorist attacks has an international
dimension that requires the United States to work effectively with
friends and allies. Traditionally, responsibility for international
collaboration on national security matters has fallen primarily to
the Department of State, the Department of Defense (DOD), and, to
some extent, the FBI and CIA. Since its creation, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has played a critical role in protecting
U.S. interests overseas, but it lacks some of the formal
instruments available to other agencies for promoting international
cooperation.
Congress should ensure that the DHS is charged and funded to
provide international security assistance programs similar to
those managed by the State and Defense Departments. Likewise, the
DHS should have a more formal role in advising, cooperating, and
supporting foreign development, humanitarian assistance,
public diplomacy, and post-conflict stability operations.
Aviation and maritime security--facilitating safe and reliable
international trade and travel--should be the first priority.
Regionally, the top priorities should be working with traditional
U.S. trading partners and developing capacity in the Western
Hemisphere and in troubled areas in Africa, the Middle East, and
South and Southeast Asia.
Partnering for Victory
Since the beginning of the Cold War, security assistance
programs have been a foundation of American foreign policy. The
international security assistance programs funded by the State
Department and executed by the Defense Department produce a
number of tangible benefits. These programs safeguard and promote
U.S. interests and build enduring alliances. Assistance also helps
allies to address military threats, manage natural disasters and
humanitarian crises, and defend themselves. In the event that the
U.S. military must step in to assist an ally, countries receiving
security assistance have a greater chance of collaborating
effectively with American forces because they will likely have
compatible equipment, communications, and doctrine.[1]
The Pentagon administers a number of security assistance
programs: Foreign Military Sales, International Military
Education and Training (IMET), transfers of excess defense
articles, and Foreign Military Financing (FMF).
Foreign Military Sales. Foreign governments buy
equipment, services, and training under Foreign Military Sales
programs. Developed during the Cold War to increase the capacity of
allies to deter Soviet aggression, these programs remain an
instrument for bolstering regional security and promoting
interoperability between U.S. forces and America's friends and
allies. In fiscal year (FY) 2006, Foreign Military Sales worldwide
totaled over $18 billion.[2]
International Military Education and Training.
Funded by the Department of State under the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, IMET provides foreign military and civilian personnel
with professional, leadership, and management training and
instruction in managing defense establishments and budgets.
Instruction includes over 4,100 courses taught at roughly 275
military schools.[3]
Excess Defense Articles. Excess defense articles may be
sold to any country eligible to purchase them or given as grants.
For example, excess articles have been given to Latin American and
Caribbean nations to combat narcotics trafficking.[4] In FY 2006, grants
and sales totaled over $1 billion.
Foreign Military Financing. The FMF program allocates
grants and loans to eligible countries for financing purchases of
military articles, services, and training. FMF is run by the DOD
and financed from the State Department's international affairs
budget.[5] The State Department has requested over
$4.5 billion in FMF funding for FY 2008.[6]
In addition to fostering bilateral relations, FMF is a principal
instrument for facilitating regional cooperation. Programs
financed by FMF include NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP),
the African Crisis Response Initiative, and the Enhanced
International Peacekeeping Initiative. Partnership for Peace
programs enhance interoperability with NATO. The African Crisis
Response Initiative helps to build the capacity of African
states to engage in peacekeeping and other humanitarian operations.
The Enhanced International Peacekeeping Initiative aids in
developing foreign peacekeeping professionals. The Pentagon
also administers multinational counternarcotics, disaster relief,
and mine action programs.[7]
FMF already contributes to homeland security activities that
require civil-military cooperation. NATO's Civil Emergency Planning
Directorate coordinates national planning for domestic
emergencies, such as storms and floods. The directorate includes a
Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre, which
organizes disaster relief efforts. The center has representatives
from all 26 NATO members and the 20 nations in the PFP.
Besides coordinating disaster relief, it conducts exercises,
training, and research. Additionally, NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster
Response Unit provides national civil and military assets,
including aviation (such as helicopters) and specialized
ground forces (such as decontamination teams).
In addition to financing, sales, and assistance programs, the
Pentagon supports international cooperation in defense science and
technology research. Particularly important to this effort is the
Technical Cooperation Program, one of the world's largest
collaborative science and technology cooperatives. Through
this program, scientists and engineers from Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States cooperate on
defense projects, including explorations of alternative
concepts prior to new weapon systems; collaborative research
and development through sharing data, equipment, materiel, and
facilities; and joint experiments, exercises, and
demonstrations. This cooperation has been extended to areas
related to homeland security.[8]
Finally, the DOD funds five regional centers for security
studies. These centers host conferences, sponsor studies, and offer
courses and seminars on issues such as national security planning
and civil- military relations. The centers present American views
on security questions and regional perspectives. They also
foster people-to-people contacts among defense establishments.[9]
The Department of State also engages in substantial foreign
assistance. For example, the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs undertakes programs to assist foreign
states and works with foreign officials and organizations through
international, regional, and country-specific programs.[10]
Global Homeland Security
It makes sense for the DHS to use tools similar to traditional
national security and cooperation tools to build homeland security
partnerships and capacity around the world. The transnational
nature of contemporary terrorist threats, the interdependence of
modern societies resulting from globalization, and the concept of
using layered defenses to thwart attack at every turn from
conception to execution all make the case for multinational
homeland security partnerships.
Moreover, the events of the past decade illustrate the extent to
which terrorism has become an international challenge.
Terrorists move between countries, exploiting loopholes wherever
they find them. They use Latin America as a base for safe havens,
recruiting, fund-raising, and facilitating international travel. In
South and Central Asia, terrorist groups have established an
evolving network of staging areas from which they can attack other
countries. Europe served as a base for recruiting and planning for
9/11, suicide attacks in Iraq, and other terrorist acts.[11]
Protecting the international networks that facilitate the flow
of goods, people, services, and ideas raises a number of
priorities. Eventually, the DHS needs to develop the ability to
oversee and participate in robust assistance programs in all of
these areas.
Aviation and Maritime Security. One-third of the U.S.
economy depends on trade, and most U.S. imports and exports travel
by sea. Aviation security is critical because civilian aviation is
both a frequent target of transnational terrorism and a common
means of travel for international terrorists.[12]
Immigration and Border Control. Transnational
terrorists have exploited every known legal and illegal means of
international travel from using legitimate and falsified travel
documents (such as passports) to crossing through established
points of entry and across open borders.[13]
Information Security. The Internet is a primary tool for
international recruiting, propaganda, fund-raising, gathering
intelligence, and planning and coordinating attacks, as well as a
means of launching malicious acts.[14]
Counterterrorism Operations. The best defense against
transnational terrorism is to stop terrorists before they strike by
disrupting radicalization, recruiting, training, and financing
and by foiling active plots, dismantling terrorist networks, and
incapacitating leadership.[15]
Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. The
effects of large-scale disasters do not respect borders. For
example, estimates of the global cost of 9/11 vary, but the attacks
easily cost many tens of billions of dollars.[16]
The DHS and Global Security
The 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security acknowledged
that "a successful strategy for homeland security requires
international cooperation."[17] In fact, the DHS has over
2,000 representatives overseas, a number exceeded only by the State
Department.[18]
Many of the legacy agencies folded into the DHS had some
international assistance programs. For example, the Coast Guard is
responsible for inspecting foreign ports for compliance with
the International Ship and Port Security Codes. To date, the
service has issued final reports on 14 of 29 Caribbean
nations, finding that a number of facilities need to make
improvements or take additional measures.
The DHS also participates in the Caribbean Corridor
Initiative, a multiagency effort to combat illicit drug smuggling.
Under this program, the Customs and Border Protection agency
provides training on cargo and document inspection.[19]
It is time to formalize and integrate the DHS's disparate
international programs and to provide the DHS with the resources
and legal authorities to establish effective and enduring programs.
Specifically, Congress should:
- Establish the legislative authority for a DHS initiative
on international homeland security assistance.
- Provide annual appropriations for DHS assistance
programs.
- Assign jurisdiction over these programs to the House
Committee on Homeland Security and Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Task the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs with
crafting international assistance programs in coordination with
DHS operating agencies (e.g., the Coast Guard and Customs and
Border Protection) and interagency partners, including the Pentagon
and the State Department.
For its part, the DHS should:
- Consolidate homeland security and disaster response
programs run by other agencies under the DHS (to the extent
authorized by Congress), such as programs related to port security
assistance.
- Establish "one stop" assistance programs for countries
that offer holistic solutions for air, land, and sea security with
equipment, logistics, training, and technical support that can be
customized to meet the specific needs of each country.
Alternatively, the DHS could offer a menu of goods and services,
allowing countries to build their own assistance programs.
- Promote international standardization and
interoperability in doctrine, equipment, and procedures among
U.S. friends and allies.
- Advocate programs that respect and enhance the sovereignty
of individual nations. The DHS should promote domestic programs
and international security cooperation that improve public safety;
effectively combat transnational terrorism and crime; encourage
economic growth, free markets, and trade; and protect the civil
liberties of U.S. citizens, respect the rights of friends and
allies, and respect human rights.[20]
- Provide overall management, accountability, and oversight of
international homeland security assistance efforts.
The DHS international assistance effort should be organized
to:
- Create a formal, integrated education and training
program similar to IMET. This would include training in the
United States, mobile training teams that would deploy overseas,
and support for international programs. The DHS should integrate
its IMET program into its overall professional development
program.[21]
- Establish a security assistance sales, lease, and grant
program that allows the department to assist countries in
obtaining equipment, support, and financing for homeland security
functions.
- Facilitate more international collaboration in researching,
developing, and sharing homeland security technologies in
coordination with the Science and Technology Directorate, such as
establishing an international clearinghouse of technical
information.[22]
Conclusion
While the exact design and responsibilities of a DHS
international assistance program remain flexible, the increasingly
transnational nature of threats to the American homeland and the
need to mitigate the global effects of terrorist incidents abroad
demand steadfast and organized international engagement by the
Department of Homeland Security.
The United States stands to reap enormous security benefits
from improved security abroad. By establishing multinational
homeland defense education and training initiatives and mobile
training teams similar to the Defense Department's IMET program,
the DHS could significantly enhance foreign national homeland
security expertise and performance while establishing critical
relationships with foreign governments and civilian personnel.
Foreign acquisition of U.S. homeland security technology,
facilitated by a DHS program similar to DOD's Foreign Military
Financing, could substantially improve international security.
Indeed, the international standardization of practices,
oversight, and systems technology in maritime security
assistance and heightened international collaboration in
researching, developing, and sharing homeland security
technologies could realize dramatic improvements in international
security.
James Jay Carafano,
Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research
Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at
The Heritage Foundation. Richard Weitz, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and
Director of Program Management at the Hudson Institute.
[3]U.S.
Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State, Foreign
Military Training and DoD Engagement Activities of
Interest.
[4]U.S.
Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp.
699 and 701.
[6]U.S.
Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p.
56.
[7]U.S.
Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State, Foreign
Military Training and DoD Engagement Activities of
Interest.
[9]U.S.
Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State, Foreign
Military Training and DoD Engagement Activities of
Interest.
[10]U.S. Department of State, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, "INL Regional
and Country Programs," at www.state.gov/p/inl/narc (August 20,
2007).
[11]For regional threat assessments, see Mark P.
Sullivan, "Latin America: Terrorism Issues," Congressional Research
Service Report for Congress, updated January 18, 2006, at
/static/reportimages/C6F95C05FA2E10D971748FA8B00EC68C.pdf
(August 20, 2007); K. Allen Krondstadt and Bruce Vaughn, "Terrorism
in South Asia," Congressional Research Service Report for
Congress, updated December 13, 2004, at www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32259.pdf (August
20, 2007); and Robert S. Leiken, "Europe's Angry Muslim Problem,"
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 4 (July/August 2005), at www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html (August
20, 2007).
[13]For an overview, see Thomas R. Eldridge,
Susan Ginsburg, Walter T. Hempel II, Janice L. Kephart, and Kelly
Moore, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States,August 21, 2004, at www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf (August
20, 2007).
[15]For example, see Michael Jacobson, The
West at War: U.S. and European Counterterrorism Efforts,
Post-September 11 (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for
Near East Studies, 2006).
[18]Paul Rosenzweig, Counselor to the Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Acting Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, "Review of
2006 for the Department of Homeland Security and Priorities for
2007," U.S. Department of State, Foreign Press Center Briefing,
December 20, 2006, at http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/78146.htm (October
11, 2007). Over 450 DHS representatives are based in Canada in
Customs and Border Protection clearance programs, and
representatives are also posted in other nations. Other DHS
personnel posted overseas are primarily from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the
Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and the
Secret Service. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has two
officers posted to NATO.
[19]U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Information on Port Security in the Caribbean Basin,
GAO-07-804R, June 29, 2007, pp. 3 and 5, at www.gao.gov/new.items/d07804r.pdf (October
11, 2007).
[21]For comprehensive recommendations, see James
Jay Carafano, "Missing Pieces in Homeland Security: Interagency
Education, Assignments, and Professional Accreditation,"Heritage
Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 1013, October 16, 2006,
at www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/em1013.cfm.
[22]For specific recommendations, see James Jay
Carafano, Jonah J. Czerwinski, and Richard Weitz, "Homeland
Security Technology, Global Partnerships, and Winning the Long
War," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1977, October 5,
2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/bg1977.cfm,
and James Jay Carafano and Richard Weitz, "Rethinking Research,
Development, and Acquisition for Homeland Security," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 2000, January 22, 2007,
at www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/bg2000.cfm.