Where Industry and Security Intersect
What's New | Sitemap | Search
As you just heard, my Bureau in the Commerce Department is named the Bureau of Industry and Security. This name reflects the fact that our agency works on a broad array of issues at the intersection of industry and security. It also reflects the Administration's recognition that, in today's world, U.S. industry and U.S. security are inextricably linked, and that the public and private sectors must jointly address economic and security issues.
As amply demonstrated by the events of the last year, the health of U.S. industry is dependent on security - the security of our borders, our transportation systems, our computer networks, and our mail systems. At the same time, our security has never been more dependent on a vibrant private sector working in partnership with government at all levels.
I would like to take a few minutes this morning to discuss how the terrorist attacks of September 11 changed our perceptions of the way we think about national security, economic security, and what is now known as homeland security. In particular, I want to focus on the fact that the American economy, including our critical infrastructures, is now the new target of terrorism. I also want to discuss the importance of leadership by the private sector – in conjunction with government officials – in protecting our security as well as in sustaining confidence and engagement in our economy despite the fact that terrorist attacks, inevitably, may hit their mark from time to time.
It has become clear that the ultimate goal of international terrorism is to compel U.S. withdrawal from our global commitments and presence, especially in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. One of the important lessons learned from September 11 is that for many terrorists – including Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda – the targets of attack against the United States have gone beyond the physical manifestations of our country overseas, such as our armed forces or embassies, to our entire domestic economy and our way of life.
By attacking our economy and our infrastructures, terrorists hope to drive us inward – to undermine our national will, to compel us to abandon our global engagement, and to cause us to retreat into isolationism. Indeed, a principal aim of the terrorists is to attack targets within the United States whose destruction or impairment could produce one or more of the following results: disruptions to the delivery of services or the performance of functions essential to our national economy or to our government; large-scale injury or death; or damage to national morale, prestige, or confidence. The types of targets that could produce such results include the key assets and systems that comprise the nation’s critical infrastructures. These represent the foundations of our economic security, national defense, public safety, and quality of life. Other targets include key assets or special events that are symbolically equated with national traditions, values, prestige, or political and economic power
The new terrorist strategy – aimed not just at our people, but also at our economy and our way of life – explains why what has become known as “homeland security” is fundamentally different from traditional national security. Traditional national security is largely a government responsibility. It involves the joint efforts of the military, the foreign policy establishment, and the intelligence community; it is carried out almost exclusively by the federal government; and it relates to defense of our airspace and national borders, as well as to our military, diplomatic, and intelligence operations overseas seeking to maintain global and regional stability. Homeland security, however, is a shared responsibility that cannot be carried out by the federal government alone. It requires full partnership with the private sector because the private sector owns or operates 85 percent of the nation’s critical infrastructures.
In light of these considerations, effective protection of homeland security requires a national strategy – not just a government strategy – that includes coordinated action by federal, state, and local governments, along with private industry as well as with every citizen and resident. The strategy must clarify and, in some instances, redefine the respective roles, responsibilities, and expectations of government (federal, state, and local) and private-sector owners and operators of our critical infrastructures. Making industry a true partner in securing our homeland and our critical infrastructures necessitates a “cultural” adjustment on both sides. This will not be easy, but it must be done, and I am confident it can be done.
The strategy also must involve more than protecting people and property within the borders of the United States from terrorism, though that unquestionably is of paramount importance. It also must focus on preserving our way of life despite the fact that terrorist attacks may periodically find their mark.
Public understanding and acceptance of the national strategy are essential. The strategy should serve as an important vehicle for properly shaping public expectations about future terrorist threats and the roles that government and industry must play in defending against those threats. Public resilience and support will be sustainable in the aftermath of future terrorist attacks only if those expectations are reasonable and, for the most part, fulfilled. Unreasonable public expectations, or reasonable expectations that go unfulfilled in the wake of an attack, could result in public disengagement from activities essential to an orderly functioning national economy. As illustrated by the lessons learned from September 11, such disengagement can be every bit as damaging to the nation as the physical destruction caused by the attack itself.
We also must recognize that any thing or activity of value to Americans is a potential target of terrorism, although some things or activities are more lucrative as targets than others and, therefore, require greater coordination and concentrated attention. Accordingly, every level of government, industry, and the general public play a role, each according to its own unique capability and positioning.
In addition, the strategy you are helping to develop must be comprehensive in scope. For all potential targets in the United States, we must examine ways to strengthen our capabilities to prevent terrorist attacks through deterrence, detection, or preemption. For special targets, such as critical infrastructures, other key assets, or special events, we need to give particular attention to the respective roles of industry and government. In doing so, we need to define what are exclusively government roles, what are exclusively industry roles, and what are necessarily joint or shared roles, as well as the means for carrying out those roles.
There are no easy answers, and we do not expect to solve all of the problems in this meeting. What I think is important to accomplish today is to hear from you on what you believe are the unique competencies that put private industry in the best position to take a leadership role in protecting our critical infrastructures. We would like to hear your thoughts on whether the existing environment is conducive to exercising that leadership, and, if not, what are the problems and your suggestions as to how to resolve them. We also would like to hear your thoughts on how government at all levels can help, or whether government involvement is even necessary. In many respects, we would welcome promoting market rather than regulatory solutions. To the extent that private industry is able and willing to manage the security risks related to our critical infrastructures, the government can focus its efforts in other areas of homeland security where market-driven solutions are either unavailable or unlikely to succeed.
Let me conclude by stressing again that the central premise of the Administration’s approach to homeland security is that securing our homeland is a shared responsibility best achieved through an unprecedented partnership between government at all levels and the private sector. I know that some are skeptical that such a public-private partnership will work, or doubt that the private sector is willing to step up to the plate. I think, however, that these skeptics miss the point. If we are going to succeed in this endeavor, a culture of collaboration, not confrontation, will be essential. This meeting and the perspectives that are shared today will help shape our national strategy and advance the public-private partnership needed to effectively secure our homeland.
We look forward to discussing these issues and working with you in the future.