[Back]
[Index]
[Next]
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] |
The Inman Report
|
INTRODUCTION
In convening the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, the Secretary of State outlined the scope and dimension of the security problems that confront the United States in continuing to do diplomatic business overseas as well as in providing adequate reciprocal protection for foreigners stationed or visiting the United States on diplomatic business. With the cooperation of a wide range of U.S. Government domestic and foreign affairs agencies, the Panel has examined the issues that relate to diplomatic security in the U.S and overseas.
This report addresses questions of organization within the Department, professionalism of those executing security responsibilities, international diplomacy to thwart terrorism, the protection of foreign dignitaries and missions, certain intelligence and alerting processes, physical security standards, and the substantial building program that is required.
Over the past few years, many demands have accumulated requiring more resources, both financial and human, in the area of security. Security has not traditionally been given a high priority by diplomatic establishments. The large, important, and growing security demand at home and abroad requires a competent professional organization with a sense of mission and identity legislatively defined and yet accountable to the traditional authority of management. In the matter of organization, the Panel recommends the creation of a new Bureau for Diplomatic Security, reporting to the Under Secretary for Management. Complementing the establishment of this bureau, the Panel recommends that a Diplomatic Security Service be created by legislation. A recommendation is also made that responsibility for diplomatic activities in the field of international terrorism be transferred from the current Office for Counter Terrorism and Emergency Planning (M/CTP), which reports to the Under Secretary for Management, to the Office of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. International diplomacy on terrorism may not produce substantive results, but an aggressive, determined effort must be undertaken and that can best be carried out from the Department's foreign policy office rather than its management office.
The other functions of the current M/CTP should be subsumed in the office of the new Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security. These include two areas of heightened importance: Emergency Action Planning (EAP), which includes crisis simulation and contingency planning, and the Anti-terrorist Assistance Program (ATA).
During the Panel's deliberations, questions of system-wide security consciousness and accountability were raised. The Panel recommends that the Secretary ask for legislation that would establish a Board of Inquiry or, alternatively, using existing authorities, put in place such board to undertake investigations into major security incidents in the future. Draft legislation is attached in the event the Secretary chooses that option. The Panel believes that a formal procedure to investigate loss of life or major destruction of property, with due regard to individual rights and fair play, is an essential element in evolving a stronger process for assuring accountability for dereliction in the execution of assigned responsibilities.
The new Diplomatic Security Service must incorporate the best features and attributes of professional law enforcement in order that it will become capable of providing the level of competence that will be required in United States diplomatic and consular missions around the world in the face of the expected terrorist threat environment. Additionally, the DSS must provide the kind of professional protective services that serve as a model by which the U.S. should demand reciprocity. The necessary professionalism in the DSS can only be created if it has its own structure for personnel recruitment, advancement,and assignment. At the same time, the DSS should remain an integral part of the Department of State, to ensure responsiveness to the overall goals of American foreign policy. Individual DSS professionals should regularly be assigned to the regional bureaus and other organizational entities that need sound security advice on a daily basis.
A careful examination of the nature and frequency of terrorism, civil strife, urban violence, and comparable occurrences throughout the world has led the Panel to recommend that a large number of facilities around the world, which once may have represented the optimal site for the conduct of American diplomacy, be replaced by more physically secure sites and buildings. The Panel believes that it is essential that a substantial relocation and building program be initiated and carried out with dispatch. The alternative is to remain hostage to the likelihood of American diplomatic establishments being physically assaulted by mobs or bombed or sabotaged by terrorists. This building program should be undertaken as rapidly as possible and should be sustained until it is completed. To accomplish this, adequate, continuing, secured funding must be assured. The Panel recommends a capital budgeting system that will permit progress at the maximum feasible pace.
There are many other issues addressed in this report which vary in magnitude. No effort has been made to arrange recommendations in a priority sequence. Instead, the Panel has endeavored to offer recommendations on all problems which surfaced that are within the assigned responsibilities of the Secretary of State. For many years, the Department of State has loyally attempted to discharge growing and changing responsibilities with austere resources. The interests of the United States cannot be upheld by continuing that approach. The recommendations of the Panel will require a large commitment of resources, both human and financial, which cannot be satisfied through the shifting of existing priorities or expenditures. Taken together, the Panel believes the recommendations represent a large step forward in ensuring our ability to continue to do our diplomatic business around the world into the future and to fulfill our reciprocal obligations at home.
Not discussed in this report, even though of great importance in some instances, are a number of problems identified by the Panel that are not susceptible to unilateral solution by the Secretary of State. These issues relate to or grow out of interagency relationships, United States Government organization for foreign intelligence and counter-terrorism programs, and the problems associated with electronic and physical penetration of U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas. Separate responses on these issues have been provided to the Secretary of State.
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] | The Inman Report
|