USA Port Security and Terrorism: Emergency Management

Abstract 

The September 11 th, 2001 terrorist attacks increase awareness regarding the vulnerability of terrorist attacks on all transportation modes. Today, port security has become a significant part of the entire heated discussion on the United States security ( Stein, 2018 ). The far-reaching issues that Congress needs to deal with include the currently existing American port security initiatives and responding to or making proposals to enhance port security. The US maritime system comprises more than 300 rivers and seaports with over 3800 passenger and cargo terminals. However, a more significant percentage of sea cargo is only concentrated in a few main ports. The majority of the ships calling at the American ports are mainly foreign countries operated by foreign crews. The seaport security has traditionally placed their attention on container ships since they are vulnerable to terrorist infiltration. The US ports receive and handle more than 9 million maritime containers every year. While the CBP (Bureau of Customs and Border Protection) analyses the cargo and the available information to target specific containers and cargo for closer scrutiny and inspection, the security team only manages to inspect just a small percentage of the containers arriving port. This study's main objective is to examine the American port security, specifically focusing on the shipping cargo threat as a means of transporting potential terror weapons like bonds or radioactive devices through any significant American seaports. 

USA Port Security and Terrorism 

Introduction 

Background of the Study 

The September 11 th, 2001 terrorist attacks increase awareness regarding the vulnerability of terrorist attacks on all transportation modes. Today, port security has become a significant part of the entire heated discussion on the United States security ( Stein, 2018 ). The far-reaching issues that Congress needs to deal with include the currently existing American port security initiatives and responding to or making proposals to enhance port security. The US maritime system comprises more than 300 rivers and seaports with over 3800 passenger and cargo terminals. However, a more significant percentage of sea cargo is only concentrated in a few main ports. The majority of the ships calling at the American ports are mainly foreign countries operated by foreign crews. The seaport security has traditionally focused on container ships since they are perceived to be vulnerable to terrorist infiltration ( McEntire, 2018 ). The US ports receive and handle more than 9 million maritime containers every year. The CBP analyses the cargo and the available information to aim at specific containers and cargo for closer scrutiny and inspection. The security team only manages to inspect just a small percentage of the containers arriving at the port.

The CBP and the Coast Guard are the US federal agencies having the most significant presence in the American seaports. As part of the response to the September 11 th attack on the US, the Coast Guard came up with many innovative port-security operations since WWII. The Coast Guard upgraded its 24-hour NOA (Notice of Arrival) for ships to 96 NOA hours. The NOA allows the Coast Guard to pick some of the potential ships ranked as high-risk for boarding when they arrive at the harbor entrance. The CBP also improved on the timing of the information about the cargo received at the sea carriers. Through the CSI (Container Security Initiative) program, the CBP officials pre-screens the American bound marine containers at the loading foreign ports ( Harrald, Stephens, & Rene, 2004 ). The C-TPAT provides the importers with faster cargo processing whenever they comply with the CBP standards and guidelines for securing their entire supply chain.

To raise the American port security standards, in November 2002, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The congress debate focus has shifted to whether the current efforts are truly enhancing port security and whether the measure is sufficient in addressing the increased threat of terrorism. While most agree that the CBP and the Coast Guard programs address the coast security threats, they agree that they only represent a model for developing a maritime security regime. There are still significant gaps in the American ports ( Reese, 2016 ). The GAO has completed an investigation looking into how the C-TPAT and CSI programs are being implemented. They discovered that several shortcomings and challenges need to be revised. The GAO also found that the C-TPAT participants were gaining from the reduced security measures for the imported cargo after certification into the program before validation by CBP. The participants were genuinely complying with security measures ( Waugh & Sylves, 2002 ). GAO also discovered that not all the cargo containers under CBP radar for conducting different kinds of inspections at the seaports for overseas cargo were subjected to the local customs administration's review.

Literature Review 

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed and implemented the 9/11 Commission Recommendations during the 110 th Congress held in 2006. Even though these recommendations mainly emphasized the airport security guidelines and actions, they recognized the American ports' potential weak areas against terrorist attacks. In the 2007 fiscal year, Congress released the mandate that in a period of 3 to 5 years, all the United States bound containers to all undergo mandatory scanning and then sealed as provided in the protocols. Data revealed that about 4.1% of the inbound shipping containers were subjected to this screening method by the end of 2012, and the American seaports continued to trail behind the airport security ( McEntire, 2018 ). This study's main objective is to examine the American port security, specifically focusing on the shipping cargo threat as a means of transporting potential terror weapons like explosives or radioactive devices through major American seaports.

National Strategies and Plan 

President Obama's administration in 2010 signed and published to law the US National Security Strategy that had numerous national interests, including the following:

Security: The USA security, general public and the American allies' security and partners' security 

Prosperity: An innovative and robust American economy that operates in a free and fair economic environment 

International order: a global order led by the American government and leadership that promotes security and peace, providing an opportunity to all via cooperation in solving the world challenges 

Values: Respect for the universal values, both around the globe and back at home 

The four national interests are connected, and, as such, they are pursued together. The threats that the United States faces have been changing over the last two decades and now include nuclear weapons spread to the terrorists who are determined to destroy the ways of the Americans lifestyle ( Reese, 2016 ). Homeland security will heavily depend on the systems put in place to detect and prevent attacks. The 2010 strategy remains in force to date with the current administration.

Key Maritime Acts 

Creating the US strategic plan and its coordination and synchronization with all the government parties was the initial step in attaining a working and reliable security operando for America's seaport. In November 2002, President Bush signed the MTSA into law ( Ciarrocchi, 2019 ). MTSA required several security enhancements design to include training and monitoring to protect the country's waterways, seaports, and coastal areas from terrorist attacks. MTSA further demanded that the federal government solve the vulnerabilities and address specific demands for dealing with the international inbound shipping cargo ( McEntire, 2018 ). President Bush also intervened to have $57 bn set aside to ensure the security initiatives' implementation. Out of these funds, only a small part of this money found its way to the seaport, $2.3 billion.

Congress approved and signed the SAFE Port Act on October 13th, 2006. Congress passed the SAFE Port Act as a Greenlane Bill component meant to enhance security at the American seaports. The SAFE Port Act saw the authorization of $3.4 billion every year for five years and another $400 million per year for five years meant for extra training and grants for the major seaports. The Bill proposed thorough screening of all cargo handled by the country's principal seaports to detect any radioactivity materials and devised ways of handling the materials in case any is identified. The process was to be fully implemented by the end of 2007.

The DHS was commissioned to develop a test program at three ports in foreign countries to test a new technology created for non-intrusive inspection of the shipped cargo. The Bill culminated in the formation and adoption of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations passed into law by the House of Representatives. The legislation placed a mandatory requirement that all inbound American containers (100%) be taken through a mandatory scanning process and appropriately sealed as part of enhancing security at the port ( Harrald, Stephens, & Rene, 2004 ). The Container Security Initiative (CSI) was created through CBP and enforced in the cargo security plan. The Container Security project solved the potential terrorist threats to American border security and the world trade by adopting a sea cargo container using a multispecialty team in the foreign ports. The program has been adopted in more than 58 ports across the world since 2002, being the most significant number of containers shipped to the USA.

Methodology 

Introduction 

This chapter presents a discussion about the importance of taking this study, the research design, data collection methods, data analysis, and the limitations of the study. The chapter's objective is to give a brief review of the methodology for the research ( Drabek, & Evans, 2007 ). The study looks into earlier research papers, government agency papers, journals, and academic databases to determine whether the current strategies are truly enhancing port security and whether their effort is sufficient in addressing the increased threat of terrorism. While most agree that the CBP and the Coast Guard programs address the coast security threats, they agree that these programs only represent a model for developing a maritime security regime and that there are still significant gaps in the American ports.

Study Relevance 

First, the case study approach examines a contemporary situation typically. While there is a possibility to discuss historical research studies, many case studies are interested in reviewing the social scenarios as they unfold. Second, a case study should not just look into a given situation's narrative and give reports. Dubois (2002) confirms that examining a phenomenon does not necessarily imply that the research study must be based on earlier research studies, the framework of theories. Still, it should be more interested in accomplishing the research interest and new findings ( Waugh & Sylves, 2002 ) . Lastly, the case study approach entails a detailed investigation of the phenomena within its real-life context. The study aims to provide extensive analysis, including analysis of the phenomena and the location context. Therefore, the research uses a case study approach to increase the American port security situation about terrorism and conduct analysis and give recommendations to enhance American pot security. 

Study Design 

The paper adopted a case study research design. According to Young (1999), a case study is a very reliable qualitative analysis method ( Stein, 2018 ). The case study method involves a complete and careful observation of a social unit, and it does not matter the social unit under investigation. Case study research design is considered more appropriate for this study because the research concentrates on answering the questions 'why' and 'how.' Young (1960) defines a case study as comprehensive research of a social unit, whether the unit is a group, a person, a community, a district or a social institution ( Ciarrocchi, 2019 ). A case study is a form of qualitative analysis of an institution, a person, or an organization. This approach makes it possible to look at every aspect of the unit in greater detail, and then data generalizations and inferences are drawn ( Reese, 2016 ). Therefore, the research topic area, American port security, and terrorism meet the criteria for a case study approach.

Before constructing the primary objectives and the research problem, the researcher had elementary information about the American port’s security situation., the abduction method helps expand the researcher's knowledge and help push the research process ahead using the two methods. Therefore, the analysis successfully uses the existing theories and the actual empirical data collection and analysis ( Drabek, & Evans, 2007 ). Therefore, this research adopts a qualitative research method and employee case study technique. The theories and earlier studies helped to inform the literature for this study and compare the current findings to the historical results. On the other hand, the empirical approach allowed for collecting data, analysis, and making appropriate decisions.

Data Collection 

This research study collects the primary data using an interview guide that focuses on the United States ports for cargo and passengers (Srinivasan, 2008). The approach gives a unique and authentic perception of the issues being investigated that will allow for valid generalizations and assumptions about the company. The secondary sources of data for this study are primarily academic literature, journals, relevant government portals, the appropriate and suitable government agencies information, and many more.

Data Analysis 

The study adopted a content analysis approach to analyze the data. Content analysis is the systematic qualitative description of the objects or materials of the research. Content analysis involves a detailed description and observation of the material, objects, items, or things that constitute the research sample. The content analysis method's primary objective is to examine the existing documents to determine the key factors that explain the phenomena under investigation ( Stein, 2018 ). The researcher then used the collected secondary information about company performance to compare the views collected from different sources. The data analysis process involves several stages. The interview responses were processed through editing to ensure consistency and completeness. The data were then checked for any omission and errors and then compiled. The collected data was used to inform the literature and to make the determination about the precise position of port security

Limitations of the Study 

There are several advantages related to this study. Port security is a significant issue in the American borders; conducting such an analysis may raise eyebrows from unwanted corners. The involved agencies may not be ready to provide critical data and information or documents to complete the study. The officers may be thinking that the information may be used against them or the country ( Harrald, Stephens, & Rene, 2004 ). However, this study looks forward to making it clear to all parties involved that the information is specifically for a research study, contributing to the larger debate regarding American port security, and making recommendations for better port security in the future.

This study needs to get information from the port security agencies and the related government departments. However, this may not be possible for several reasons—first, a lack of insufficient funds to complete a comprehensive study. Second, given the confidentiality with which our ports are treated, some critical data may not be provided. And if such data is provided, time may be a challenge.

Analysis and Findings 

Challenges 

More than 27% of the US GDP is accounted for through overseas trade. Keeping the right balance between creating a rigorous security program and the uninterrupted cargo flow through the US seaports is essential ( Stein, 2018 ). The security process mustn't be so strict that it will negatively impact the international or national economy. It is also critical that the security process is not so flexible that the terrorists and other interest groups exploit the system for its vulnerabilities. The objective and backbone will be a partnership between the private sector and the government where clear and transparent guidelines are created to reduce the private firms' cost complying with government regulations ( Waugh & Sylves, 2002 ). Simultaneously, giving the government grants and benefiting the firms that are doing their best in improving the security program.

The report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)) A 10-year review of the 2002 MTSA identified numerous problems that prevented the implementation of maritime security programs. The DHS determined these challenges during the study of its programs ( McEntire, 2018 ). Some of the obstacles hindering the performance of the US port security includes the following:

Program implementation and management: The implementation of some of the security processes usually are very urgent, and as such, they interfere with the control of some of these programs. The DHS provided information that the local and state government, the private sector, and the federal agencies did not have a sufficient workforce plan or strategic plan for the initial security program. 

Collaborations and partnerships: according to DHS, the interagency partnerships regarding security matters were limited as a result of insufficient capability of sharing information, slowing down maritime domain awareness 

Resources, sustainability, and funding: as a result of increased security costs, economic constraints were making DHS allocate resources for sustaining security programs that are not in the maritime domain. 

Performance measures: The DHS did not have a reliable data collection method, and as such, there was an inaccurate performance evaluation of the maritime security plans. 

Even though some of these challenges are being addressed, there is still a lot of work that I required at all government levels and the private sector ( Drabek, & Evans, 2007 ). There is a need to continually assess the security implementation plans and security programs to ensure they are useful. The country is on a positive trajectory in enhancing its seaport security at all ports to prevent potential terrorist attacks.

Failure to Achieve Directive 

By the end of the financial year 2012, President Obama's government did not achieve the imposed deadline by Congress in 2007 that all the foreign shipping containers coming through the American ports be scanned with radiation and imaging detection device before they are allowed into the united states. Janet Napolitano, the former DHS Secretary, informed Congress that there was a need for two years of extension due to the project cost. In her testimony, Jane indicated that it would cost about $16 billion to fully implement the radioactive scanners in about 700 seaports across the world that ship cargo to the United States. The DHS directly and heavily depends on the federal agencies and other partners' intelligence to identify the high-risk cargo or containers that need to be checked more thoroughly. Even though the currently underused systems have led to the confiscation of narcotics, there is no report yet of a smuggled nuclear weapon or a radioactive container ( Reese, 2016 ). It is also important to realize that about 99% of the departing containers to the US ports are monitored for radiation. These containers already passed through security checks before coming to the US.

Conclusion and Recommendations 

It is good news that America has not experienced any terrorist attacks in any of its ports. Even though no attacks have occurred at the docks, this does not mean that the American ports are safe. Based on our literature review and research analysis, this study recommends the flowing to reduce the potential of terrorist attacks at the American exports ( Ciarrocchi, 2019 ).

Awareness refers to the continual process of gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information, intelligence, and knowledge to permit individuals and organizations to anticipate requirements and to take the appropriate actions. Being aware of a potential adversary's intention, capabilities, ideologies, and objectives and the factors that influence their behavior is critical for securing the maritime domain. The awareness concept works from the angle that early identification of a potential threat and to take the appropriate response action including interdiction by the American forces at a safe distance would save lives or prevent the severe attack.

Prevention refers to the efforts taken to intervene in stopping an incident from happening. Prevention can involve reducing access, creating physical barriers, increasing the efforts by law enforcement, installing early detection systems, and coordinating efforts amongst the relevant security agencies.

Preparedness is defined by NIMS (the National Incident Management System) as a range of activities and tasks required to build, improve and sustain the operational capability to deter, respond to, protect against and recover from a critical incident. Preparedness includes creating guidelines, standards, and protocols for training, planning and exercising, improving the personnel's qualifications, and certifying equipment ( Drabek, & Evans, 2007 ). According to the port security officials interviewed in this study, for the United States to address the terrorist attacks related problems at the seaports, they have to increase their preparedness level. Preparedness calls for a measurable and demonstrated capacity to respond to severe threats with adequately planned, coordinated, and practical efforts by all the participants including the fire personnel, police, the elected officials, public health, medical, intelligence personnel, community bodies, the media, and the general public.

As described by NIMS, the response constitutes activities addressing the short-term, direct impact of an incident. The response activities include use of intelligence information to minimize the chances of occurrence of an incident and increase security operations. Other efforts include conducting surveillance of the causes and the nature of the threat, ongoing testing processes, public health, agricultural monitoring, isolation, immunization or quarantine, interdicting illegal activity, apprehending the crime perpetrators and bringing them to justice.

The recovery process includes the coordination, development, and execution of site-restoration plans or service restoration plans, government operations reconstitution ( McEntire, 2018 ). The recovery process also involves the help programs to provide housing for the affected, promoting restoration, providing treatment and long-term care to the victims, and extra measures regarding environmental, political, economic restoration, and social restoration.

References 

Ciarrocchi, D. P. (2019).  Leading in Disaster: A Qualitative Study on the Role of the 

Emergency Manager  (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). 

Drabek, T. E., & Evans, J. (2007). Emergency management and homeland security curricula: 

Contexts, cultures, and constraints.  Journal of Emergency Management ,  5 (5), 33-41. 

Harrald, J. R., Stephens, H. W., & Rene vanDorp, J. (2004). A framework for sustainable port 

security.  Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management ,  1 (2). 

Lum, B. Catastrophic Blackout: California Ports and National Security. 

McEntire, D. A. (2018).  Introduction to Homeland Security: Understanding Terrorism 

Prevention and Emergency Management . John Wiley & Sons. 

Reese, S. (2016).  Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Grants: A Summary and 

Issues . Congressional Research Service. 

Stein, M. (2018). Integrating uncrewed vehicles in port security operations: an introductory 

analysis and first applicable frameworks.  Ocean Yearbook Online ,  32 (1), 556-583. 

Waugh Jr, W. L., & Sylves, R. T. (2002). Organizing the war on terrorism.  Public 

Administration Review ,  62 , 145-153.