[Senate Hearing 107-679]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-679
PROTECTING U.S. CITIZENS ABROAD FROM TERRORISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 2, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-762 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
BILL NELSON, Florida BILL FRIST, Tennessee
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Andruch, Dianne M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Bergin, Peter E., Principal Deputy Assistant for Diplomatic
Security and Director of the Diplomatic Security Service,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Ondeck, Thomas P., president, GlobalOptions, Inc., Washington, DC 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Penner, Hon. Vernon, vice president for Corporate International
Services, Crisis Management Worldwide; former Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services, Annapolis,
MD............................................................. 26
Smyth, Frank, Washington Representative, The Committee to Protect
Journalists, Washington, DC.................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Spivack, Dr. Sheryl E., associate professor of Tourism Studies,
George Washington University, Washington, DC................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
(iii)
PROTECTING U.S. CITIZENS ABROAD FROM TERRORISM
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Bill Nelson, and Enzi.
Senator Boxer. The International Operations and Terrorism
Subcommittee will come to order. We believe that Senator Enzi
is on his way and as soon as he arrives we will take his
opening statement, but we have a time constraint, so we are
going to move forward.
I am very pleased to be joined this morning by Senator
Nelson, who has unfortunately an early commitment, but he cares
about this issue, and he is going to make an opening statement.
I want to thank Senator Enzi and his staff for their
cooperation in putting this hearing together.
Following the September 11 terrorist attack on America that
tragically claimed so many lives and the anthrax scare that
remains unsolved to this day, the United States has placed a
real focus on stopping terrorism on U.S. soil. We have done
this by creating an Office of Homeland Security, tightening
airport security, and devoting more resources and funding to
ensure security here at home.
I believe all of that is terribly important. As a member of
the Commerce Committee, I have worked hard on many of those
issues that fall into the area of homeland defense. Yet, as
Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism and with my Ranking Member Senator
Enzi, we recognize that, in addition to the new emphasis on
homeland security, Congress has a responsibility and a duty to
continue our oversight role in reviewing the threat that
terrorism poses to U.S. citizens abroad.
Just in the past few months, our embassies have been
threatened, our tourists kidnaped and killed, a journalist
executed, and even in a church in Pakistan Americans were
targeted and murdered.
In our hearing today we hope to accomplish a few goals.
First, we hope to receive an overview of terrorist threats
against U.S. citizens living, working, and traveling abroad.
Second, we hope to hear what the current procedures are for
private citizens and organizations who seek to obtain U.S.
Government assistance abroad in dealing with the terrorism
threat. Third, we want to review the plans and procedures that
are in place at the State Department to protect U.S. citizens
abroad against terrorism, including coordination with other
Federal agencies and efforts to encourage foreign governments
to enact counterterrorism policies that lead to better
protection of U.S. citizens and all people abroad. Fourth, I
hope we will hear recommendations on improving the security of
Americans abroad, especially in light of the September 11
attacks. We may want to look at legislation. We may not have to
do that. But we hope that you will come forward with those
ideas.
To help us learn more about this issue, we have invited two
distinguished panels of witnesses to testify this morning. On
the first panel we have two witnesses from the State
Department. Mr. Peter Bergin is the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Diplomatic Security and Director of the Diplomatic Security
Service. Joining him is Ms. Dianne Andruch. Did I say that
right?
Ms. Andruch. Fine.
Senator Boxer. She is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Overseas Citizens Services.
On the second panel we have four witnesses. First is Mr.
Peter Smyth, the Washington representative for The Committee to
Protect Journalists. Second is Ambassador Vernon Penner, a
terrorism expert with Crisis Management Worldwide. Ambassador
Penner also held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Overseas Citizens Services during the Reagan
administration. Third is Mr. Thomas Ondeck, a tourism expert at
GlobalOptions, Inc. Mr. Ondeck provides consulting services to
businesses operating overseas. Fourth, our witness will be Dr.
Sheryl Spivack, assistant professor of Tourism Studies at
George Washington University.
Finally, I want to make it clear this hearing is not
designed to persuade Americans against traveling abroad or
studying in foreign countries or conducting business overseas
or joining the Foreign Service. This hearing acknowledges that
U.S. citizens will and should continue to go abroad in even
greater numbers and I for one encourage all Americans to reach
out beyond our borders. That is the way we make the difference
in the world.
But I hope this hearing will lead the way for improvements
in security against terrorism for these Americans and all
people.
Senator Enzi, I am so glad to see you. I wonder if you
would yield briefly because Senator Nelson has to leave us.
Senator Enzi. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Nelson and then Senator Enzi.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Enzi.
I just wanted to come and lend my support to you and
Senator Enzi in the conduct of this hearing, because of having
just returned from 2\1/2\ weeks abroad with Senator Shelby. As
we have gone from embassy to embassy and seeing the
considerable threats that our diplomatic personnel endure,
whether it is in a wonderful facility, for example, in
Islamabad, well-constructed, relatively new, set back in a
diplomatic compound, and yet it was in that same diplomatic
compound that the bomber, the suicide bomber, infiltrated into
the church.
One of the most popular employees of our embassy was the
lady that was killed with her child. A family of Floridians
were in the church that day. We had to get to work to try to
get them air-evac'ed out. They are going to live. It is the
Wamble family. They are from the Tampa Bay area. But we are
talking about long-time, big-time recovery, the son with brain
injury, the mother with major injuries. Thank the good Lord,
they are going to live. But again, it just brings it home, the
personal aspect of Americans abroad.
Or I remember the embassy in Damascus, an embassy that is
an old embassy, but an embassy that is right on the street.
While Senator Shelby and I were there, there was a
demonstration of 100,000 people and we thanked the President of
Syria for the protection in our 2-hour meeting. We had a face-
off on some other issues. We thanked him for his help as we go
after al-Qaeda, but we certainly disagreed with his policy with
regard to Hezbollah.
But right at the outset of the meeting, we said: Thank you,
Mr. President, for protecting our diplomatic personnel. They
had the riot police lined up shoulder to shoulder with shields
out there, protecting not only the embassy but the Ambassador's
residence, which by the way had been ransacked back in the late
nineties, and the Ambassador's wife had to take refuge in a
safe room in the top of the embassy residence.
So we have really got our hands full in the protection of
our diplomatic people. Then I remember on the stop that we
broke up the trip coming home from Turkey. By the way, we are
building a new consulate in Istanbul, that will give us some
more protection, because we have had bombs and rocket grenades
shot at our embassy in Istanbul.
But breaking up the trip coming home in what is considered
a relatively--and I make the point--secure country,
Switzerland. We landed at a military base, we went to our
embassy in Berne for the country team briefing. It is in a
residential neighborhood. There is not a lot of protection
there. We are hoping that we can acquire some facilities right
next to the Ambassador's residence and then create an expanded
perimeter.
But I bring up the point about Switzerland because when you
are dealing with terrorists you never want to be surprised that
you are surprised. There is nothing that says that they are not
going--which we tried to share with the Swiss citizens and the
Swiss Government as we were there: You better be prepared.
Nothing says that you are immune from terrorist attack.
So I wanted to come and bring you these personal
observations. My heart goes out to some of--and by the way, I
was so impressed with our diplomatic personnel. My heart goes
out to people like Wendy Chamberlain, the Ambassador to
Pakistan, who after September 11--she is a single mom--she had
to take her children back to the States, return to Islamabad.
Early this year she was so excited. I saw her here. She was
so excited, she was getting her children to come back, and then
the bombing of the church, not only the evacuation of all
dependents, but the reduction of the embassy staff down to just
essential personnel.
So there is a great deal of personal disruption in family
lives. I just wanted to come and give you my personal
observations, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. I want to thank you very much. I think you
have added a lot to the hearing just because you were in the
hot spots. We thank you for going there, for doing your work
with Senator Shelby, and we will absolutely consider everything
you have said as we go on with this hearing.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. By the way, I say that, I just said a few
countries. We were in about six or eight countries, including
Kabul, Afghanistan. Our embassy there is just something to
believe. They are sleeping and eating in bunkers in the embassy
compound and they still continue to try to de-mine the grounds
of the embassy.
We had landed in helicopters from Bagram to the Kabul
Airport and suddenly a guy is out there standing, putting up
his hands, saying: Do not pass; we just found a mine; we are
going to blow it up. And they blew it up right on the side of
the road as we waited before we passed through.
So my hat is off to our embassy personnel overseas. Thank
you for letting me share that.
Senator Boxer. Senator Nelson, I think I always thought it
was rough here in the Senate, but it is a little rougher
outside.
Senator Enzi, thank you so much.
Senator Enzi. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate the comments that you have made and especially
appreciate the comments you made about how we are not trying to
discourage travel or education abroad. In fact, we do encourage
that, because every trip that I have ever made has given me a
much greater appreciation for what we have here in the United
States.
I appreciate the comments about the embassies. Those are
people who have volunteered their lives for their country, and
we certainly hope we do not have to extract that big of a
price. It is our responsibility to see that what they need,
both the people in the embassies and the people in the
military, what they need to do their job and to be safe are
provided.
Of course, these things that we are talking about are not
new. One of the first experiences that I had when I came to the
Senate was hearing from a family in my home town of Gillette,
Wyoming, who had a son in Pakistan doing an audit on his
company and the entire team of auditors were wiped out in an
assassination. It just does not seem like it can happen to
somebody that you know.
But I do thank you for calling this hearing to look at the
protection of U.S. citizens abroad, regardless of what they are
doing there, in the uncertain terrorist environment that
currently characterizes the world community. We do have a
greater understanding now.
As we all know, there is a heightened sense of fear that
terrorist acts will grow in number and intensity among our
civilian population. Feelings of vulnerability have been
increased, given the unprecedented attacks on our own soil last
September. With that heightened awareness of threat and the
increased sense of personal vulnerability at home, when it
comes to considering travel abroad Americans have been
assessing the risks of doing so as never before.
U.S. citizens are increasingly prime targets for
international terrorism. In 2000, approximately 47 percent of
all terrorist incidents worldwide were directed against U.S.
nationals or property, according to the State Department, and
the vast majority of such attacks have occurred on foreign
soil. The numbers of those who do decide to travel or live
abroad are significant. Americans make approximately 60 million
trips abroad each year and approximately 3.2 million Americans
reside overseas. Notably, the U.S. business community overseas
is a primary target of international terrorism in over 65
percent of such incidents.
Clearly, the U.S. Government has a role and a duty to its
citizens, and I look forward to the first panel reporting on
what the State Department has been doing. However, this is a
growing and complicated phenomenon, requiring the best efforts
of government and private sectors together.
Witnesses on the second panel will provide context on what
is on the minds of travelers and business people and what
measures they are considering for coping with personal safety
threats and vulnerabilities when abroad.
I look forward to hearing from today's panelists and wish
to thank them in advance for bringing to this subcommittee
their expert views on matters that grip each and every one of
us desiring to travel overseas in this post-9/11 world.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Enzi.
We are going to hold each speaker on the panel to 7 minutes
because of time constraints. We want to make sure we have a
chance to ask you questions. I hope that works out. We will put
your full statement in the record, and why do we not start with
you, Ms. Andruch, again Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas
Citizens Services at the State Department.
STATEMENT OF DIANNE M. ANDRUCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR OVERSEAS CITIZENS SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Andruch. Thank you very much and thank you also for the
opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of the Bureau of
Consular Affairs in the Department of State.
Senator Boxer. Could you pull that mike forward? I think
people in the back cannot hear.
Ms. Andruch. This is an especially important topic to us,
the protection of U.S. citizens abroad, including embassy
personnel, journalists, and private citizens, from terrorist
threats. The Bureau of Consular Affairs is charged with
exercising the Secretary of State's responsibility to provide
consular protection and service to American citizens abroad. As
the Senator already mentioned, approximately 3.2 million
Americans reside abroad and Americans make more than 60 million
trips outside the United States each year. There is no higher
priority of the Department of State than the protection and
welfare of American citizens.
U.S. citizens traveling, studying, and working abroad have
always been on the front lines of America's struggles with
terror, crime, and threats to safety. As consular officers, we
have witnessed firsthand the dreadful consequences of terrorism
against our fellow citizens abroad, for the past quarter
century and more. Recent events, however, and the sacrifice and
suffering of more American families, show once again that we
must all be more vigilant as the war against American
terrorism--America's fight against terror continues.
Since the tragedy of September 11, we have redoubled our
efforts to protect U.S. citizens abroad. In our private-public
partnership with Americans abroad, working with our colleagues
in the Diplomatic Security Office and other government
agencies, the Bureau of Consular Affairs is always exploring
new ways to assist and protect American citizens. In my
testimony today, I will discuss some of our efforts to assess
the dangers confronting Americans abroad and to tailor our
programs and services to the needs of our citizens.
Our Overseas Citizens Services Directorate, OCS, provides
vital assistance to U.S. citizens abroad on a daily basis and
especially during periods of crisis. One of our primary
objectives is to give Americans easily accessible information
alerting them to potentially dangerous situations. While
unforeseen events can and do occur anywhere, we believe that
safe, informed travel is best achieved by learning everything
possible about conditions in that country before the travel
begins.
The Department informs Americans of potential threats to
their safety abroad through the three-tiered Consular
Information Program. Consular information sheets, public
announcements, and travel warnings are available on our
Consular Affairs home page at travel.state.gov.
Senator Boxer. Say that one more time.
Ms. Andruch. The Web page is travel.state.gov.
That Web site got over 118 million hits last year. Since
September 11 we have issued two worldwide caution public
announcements, two regional Middle East public announcements,
and numerous country-specific public announcements and travel
warnings to address terrorism and other threats.
I would like to take a moment to address briefly how threat
material in this program is assessed. Security information
contained in public announcements and travel warnings is based
on information that is gathered from many sources, including
our embassies and consulates abroad, U.S. intelligence agency
open sources, and of course from other friendly governments.
The Bureau of Diplomatic Security determines if the threat
information is specific, credible, and non-counterable. The
Bureau of Consular Affairs coordinates the final text with the
Department of State offices involved, embassies overseas, and
other U.S. Government agencies.
In addition to the consular information program, American
communities abroad are alerted to threats through what we call
a warden system, or a network of providing information, which
is designed and maintained by our embassies and consulates.
These systems provide a quick mechanism for sharing information
when there is imminent danger to the resident American
community.
Following September 11, U.S. embassies and consulates used
these systems intensively to disseminate messages relevant to
the safety and security of Americans. In March of this year, we
authorized posts to use their systems to distribute domestic
threat advisories that were issued by the Attorney General or
Governor Ridge here in the United States.
I would like to take this opportunity as well to let you
know about changes in our critical consular services for
Americans since September 11. One of our short-term goals is
the creation of an online registration program for American
travelers. This new system will create a central Internet site
where Americans can register online with any embassy or
consulate in the world. We plan to pilot test this new system
early this summer.
In addition, we established a call center through which
Americans without Internet access can get the latest
information. Recognizing the need to improve our ability to
track individual cases of Americans involved in crises overseas
and report on the situation, the Bureau of Consular Affairs has
worked with private sector information and technology firms to
create a new crisis management software application. Again, in
the summer of this year we will deploy this system to all our
embassies and consulates abroad.
Another major change that the Bureau implemented since
September 11 is a new overseas passport issuance program. On
April 8 of this year, American citizens who require issuance of
a U.S. passport while residing or traveling abroad will be
issued the latest state-of-the-art passport. It incorporates a
digitized image with other enhanced security features. The new
passport--and I happen to have a copy here--has many features
that make it one of the most secure travel documents produced
anywhere in the world.
Issuing these more secure passports, putting these into
circulation, instead of relying on the less sophisticated
versions that have been issued by embassies and consulates
abroad, will further help prevent the misuse of American
passports by criminals, terrorists, and others.
In light of the events of September 11, it is more
important than ever to reach out to congressional staff,
business, and community leaders, schools, and other key
stakeholders regarding our efforts to safeguard Americans
overseas, protect our borders via vigorous visa adjudication
processes, and also ensure the integrity of our U.S. passports.
Since September 11 we have spoken to hundreds of key
stakeholders all across the country. We partner with the Bureau
of Security, Overseas Security Advisory Council, known as OSAC,
and participate in their outreach activities with American
business, security experts and other private organizations.
Our consular sections, working closely with the embassy
regional security officer, also provide safety and security
briefings for the local American community as needed.
Is that my timer?
Senator Boxer. Yes, and I will ask, I have your statement
and we will put it in the record and we will get to some of
what else you have to say.
Ms. Andruch. OK, and I will be glad to take questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Andruch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dianne Andruch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State, Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs
Madame Chair and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Bureau of
Consular Affairs of the Department of State on the very important topic
``protecting U.S. citizens abroad, including Embassy personnel,
journalists, and private citizens, from terrorist threats.''
The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) is charged with exercising the
Secretary of State's responsibility to provide consular protection and
services to United States citizens abroad. Approximately 3.2 million
Americans reside abroad and Americans make more than 60 million trips
outside the U.S. each year. There is no higher priority of the
Department of State than the protection and welfare of Americans
overseas.
U.S. citizens traveling, studying and working abroad have always
been on the front lines of America's struggles with terror, crime and
threats to safety. As consular officers, we have witnessed first hand
the dreadful consequences of terrorism against our fellow citizens
abroad for the past quarter century and more. Recent events, and the
sacrifice and suffering of more American families, show once again that
we must be all the more vigilant as America's fight against terror
continues.
Since the tragedy of September 11th, we have redoubled our efforts
to protect U.S. citizens abroad. In our private-public partnership with
Americans abroad, working with our colleagues in the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security (DS) and other government agencies, CA is always
exploring new ways to assist and protect our citizens. In my testimony
today, I will discuss some of our efforts to assess the dangers
confronting Americans abroad and to tailor our programs and services to
the real needs of our citizens.
Our Overseas Citizens Services Directorate (OCS) provides vital
assistance to U.S. citizens abroad on a daily basis and during periods
of crisis. We exercise this responsibility through a staff in
Washington and our consular colleagues in our embassies and consulates
throughout the world. Consular duty personnel are available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week in Washington and overseas.
One of our primary objectives is to give Americans easily
accessible information alerting them to potentially dangerous
situations. While unforeseen events can occur anywhere, we believe that
safe, informed travel is best achieved by learning everything possible
about conditions in the country or region you are visiting.
The Department informs Americans of potential threats to their
safety abroad through its three-tiered Consular Information Program.
Consular Information Sheets, Public Announcements and Travel Warnings
are available on our Consular Affairs home page at
www.travel.state.gov, which received nearly 118 million inquiries last
year. Our embassies and consulates also maintain their own Web sites to
alert Americans in country to local developments. Since the bombings of
our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, we have found it
useful to issue Worldwide Caution Public Announcements, to alert
Americans generally to the fact that terrorists have threatened action
against Americans and American interests abroad.
Since September 11th, we have issued two World Wide Caution Public
Announcements, two regional Middle East Public Announcements, and
numerous country-specific Public Announcements and Travel Warnings that
address terrorism, safety and security. Of the 29 current Travel
Warnings, 9 are related to possible terrorist threats against American
citizens: Israel, the West Bank and Gaza (4/02/02; Pakistan (3/22/02);
Yemen (3/18/02); Afghanistan (2/28/02); Algeria (12/11/01); Indonesia
(11/23/01); Tajikistan (9/26/01); Colombia (4/17/01); and Lebanon (8/
28/00).
We also have Travel Warnings for Iran, Iraq and Libya, but these
are to warn Americans that there is no U.S. diplomatic presence in
these countries and that the governments are hostile to the United
States.
Of the 19 current Public Announcements, 9 are related to possible
terrorist threats against American citizens: Middle East Update (04/24/
02); Peru (4/19/02); Philippines (4/18/02); Worldwide Caution (3/17/
02); Turkmenistan (3/15/02); Colombia (2/22/02); Uzbekistan (1/8/02);
Kyrgyz Republic (1/2/02); and Malaysia (12/5/01). In addition, we
issued a Fact Sheet about chemical biological agents in October 2001.
Copies of these documents have been made available to the Committee.
I would like to take a moment to discuss briefly how threat
material in our Consular Information Program is assessed. The Aviation
Security Improvement Act of 1990, passed in response to the 1988 Pan Am
103 tragedy, provided criteria (specific, credible, non-counterable) to
be used in evaluating aviation threats. The Department adopted these
criteria more generally in evaluating all threat information. The Act
also established the tenets, adopted Government-wide as the ``No Double
Standard'' policy, for dissemination of threat information to the
American public. In keeping with the ``No Double Standard'' policy,
therefore, documents often inform private Americans of security
measures adopted by a U.S. mission within a specific country, such as
limits on in-country travel or that a post has gone to authorized
departure status.
The security information contained in Public Announcements and
Travel Warnings is based on threat information gathered from all
sources, including our embassies and consulates, the U.S. intelligence
community, open sources, and our allies. Very often, a post will
specifically request a Public Announcement and provide suggested
language. Once the Bureau of Diplomatic Security determines that the
threat information is specific, credible, and non-counterable, the
Bureau of Consular Affairs works closely with posts to develop
appropriate language, and clears the announcement with posts and other
interested offices within the Department.
In addition to the Consular Information Program, American
communities abroad are alerted to threats through warden systems, which
are designed and maintained by our embassies and consulates. This
system provides a quick mechanism for sharing information when there is
imminent danger to the American community. Because embassies now
communicate with hundreds or even thousands of citizens, the
traditional warden system has evolved into a combination of telephone,
multi-fax, e-mail, high frequency radio, media and home page
mechanisms. The best method of communication is determined on a
country-specific basis within the context of local circumstances.
Following September 11th, U.S. embassies and consulates used their
warden systems intensively to disseminate Worldwide Public
Announcements, new Travel Warnings, and other messages relevant to the
safety and security of Americans. In addition, we established a call
center through which Americans without Internet access can receive
updates to the Consular Information Program by telephone. In March
2002, we authorized posts to use their warden systems to distribute
domestic threat advisories issued by the Attorney General or Homeland
Security Agency without prior Department approval.
One of our short-term goals is the creation of an on-line
registration program for American travelers. This new system will
create a central Internet site where Americans can register on-line
with any embassy or consulate in the world. We plan to pilot test the
new system in early summer.
To respond to the concerns of Americans traveling or residing
abroad, we hold many outreach briefings in the United States to key
stakeholders in tourism, travel, education, and other organizations. In
light of the events of September 11th, it is more important than ever
to reach out to Congressional staff, business and community leaders,
schools and other key stakeholders regarding our efforts to safeguard
Americans overseas, protect our borders via vigorous visa adjudication
processes, and ensure the integrity of U.S. passports.
Since September 11th we have spoken to hundreds of key stakeholders
in Mobile, Ft. Worth, Dallas, Austin, El Paso, Palm Springs, Boise,
Tulsa, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Boston, St. Louis, Orlando and the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. We will continue our outreach efforts
this spring and summer in San Antonio, Houston, Chicago, San Francisco,
Nashville, Greensboro, NC, Miami, Stowe, VT, and Oklahoma City. We will
resume our outreach sessions in the Fall with visits to additional
cities around the country. Our Passport Agencies in the United States
are also engaged in extensive outreach to the American community. We
partner with DS's Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) and
participate in their outreach activities with American business
security experts and other private organizations. Our consular
sections, working closely with the embassy Regional Security Officer,
also provide safety and security briefings for the local American
community overseas as needed.
When a large-scale or continuing crisis occurs, Overseas Citizen
Services (OCS) frequently establishes a task force at the State
Department to assist the American citizens involved overseas and to
provide information to interested parties in the United States, most
commonly family members and members of Congress. This group operates 24
hours a day until the crisis abates. Recognizing the need to improve
its ability to track the individual cases of Americans involved in
crises overseas and report on the situation, CA has worked with a
private sector information technology firm to create a new crisis
management software application. In mid 2002, we will deploy the system
to all our embassies and consulates abroad.
Another major change implemented by CA since September 11th is our
new overseas passport issuance program. Effective April 8, 2002,
American citizens who require issuance of a U.S. passport while
residing overseas will be issued the latest, state-of-the-art passport.
It incorporates a digitized image with other enhanced security
features. Because this technology is not available at U.S. embassies
and consulates, overseas passport issuance is being transferred to the
National Passport Processing Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The
new passport has many features that make it one of the most secure
travel documents produced anywhere in the world. Issuing these more
secure passports into circulation, instead of relying on the less-
sophisticated versions issued by embassies and consulates, will help
prevent the misuse of American passports by criminals, terrorists, and
others. The Department is committed to ensuring that American citizens
receive secure documents in a timely manner. U.S. embassies and
consulates will continue to issue passports that are needed for urgent
travel. However, such passports will be limited in validity, and cannot
be extended. Bearers will be required to exchange their limited
validity passports for full-validity digitized passports, at no
additional cost, upon completion of their urgent travel.
Now I would like to turn my remarks to the assistance we have
provided to actual American victims of terrorism. During the last year
OCS has improved and expanded our assistance to American citizen
victims of serious crime overseas, including victims of terrorism. As
part of this program we are working more closely with victim assistance
and compensation programs that serve as a resource to victims in the
United States and we refer victims to specialized programs that can
provide ongoing assistance when the families return to the U.S.
Consular officers in our embassies and consulates overseas and in
Washington have provided extensive assistance to American citizens who
have been victims of terrorist acts outside the United States. As
consular officers our primary focus is the health and safety of
Americans, not the investigation of the incident, but we coordinate our
assistance with other agencies that have law enforcement
responsibilities, including the FBI.
For example:
Kidnapping in the Philippines
In the continuing case of a couple who were kidnapped by the Abu
Sayyaf Group on May 27, 2001 in the Philippines, our consular officers
in Washington and in Manila have maintained frequent and regular
communication with the family in the United States, providing them with
information updates and providing referrals for victim assistance as
requested. An ongoing hostage taking is very traumatic, not only for
the individuals who being held, but also for their families back home.
Earlier this year we facilitated the travel of two family members to
the Philippines where they received briefings and recorded personal
appeals for the release of the hostages. We coordinated our efforts
with victim assistance services; the Kansas state victim assistance
agency supported their travel and we supported their stay in the
Philippines. We will continue to maintain regular contact and provide
assistance as needed.
The U.S. Government is currently assisting the Philippine
Government in its efforts to fight the Abu Sayyaf and other terrorist
groups by supplying training and equipment to the Philippine armed
forces. U.S. Embassy officials in Manila remain in almost daily contact
with high-level officials of the Philippine government, military and
police. The U.S. has designated Abu Sayyaf as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization and their assets have been blocked under U.S. law.
A Public Announcement for the Philippines citing kidnapping of U.S.
citizens was in place when the American couple was taken hostage. The
Philippines Public Announcement has since been updated on May 27, June
6, June 14, June 26, October 4, October 5, 2001 and April 18, 2002.
Grenade Attack on Church in Islamabad
In the aftermath of the hand grenade attack on the church in
Islamabad on March our Embassy staffs assistance was critical in
responding to the immediate medical, physical and emotional needs of
the victims, many of whom were members of our official community. Two
Americans were killed in the attack and fourteen Americans and a
Foreign Service National employee of the consular section of the
Embassy were wounded.
Consular officers also assisted private U.S. citizens who were
wounded in the attack. Consular officers from several overseas posts
assisted in the medical evacuation of victims and provided continuing
support while they convalesced in overseas medical facilities. We
continue to assist the victims of this attack, linking them with
services here in the U.S., including crime victim compensation and
assistance programs that provide reimbursement for counseling and out
of pocket medical expenses.
Following the attack, the Worldwide Caution was immediately revised
on March 17. The March 17th revision notes the ``growing possibility
that as security is increased at official U.S. facilities, terrorists
and their sympathizers will seek softer targets.'' The Pakistan Travel
Warning was revised on March 18 when the Department subsequently
authorized voluntary departure of non-emergency Embassy and Consulate
personnel and family members in Pakistan. Additional information on
threats resulted in the ordered departure on March 22 of non-emergency
Embassy and Consulate personnel and family members in Pakistan, which
was reflected in the March 22 Travel Warning for Pakistan.
Israel and West Bank
With regard to events in Israel and the West Bank, most of the
injured and killed Americans are residents of the area and our consular
officers have been mobilized to visit them and assist as needed. In
some cases the victims have been visitors to the area and we have
worked with family and others to facilitate communication with home,
medical treatment, and repatriation to the U.S. when they are able to
travel. In a recent case we were able to link the victim to a state
crime victim compensation program that is coordinating services to
assist her in recovering from her serious injuries, including the loss
of an eye. The Travel Warning for Israel and the West Bank of October
2000 was updated December 7, 2001 and April 2, 2002.
Kidnapping and Murder of Daniel Pearl
Daniel Pearl, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal, was
kidnapped in Karachi, Pakistan on January 23. The Consulate General in
Karachi advised the Department of Mr. Pearl's death on February 21,
following receipt of a videotape of his murder.
In the case of Daniel Pearl, we have coordinated our efforts with
other Federal agencies to assist his widow and family, in matters such
as obtaining information and assistance and compensation resources. The
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) discussed hostage
strategy and negotiation with the parents of Daniel Pearl during key
moments of the crisis. Since Mr. Pearl's last residence in the U.S. was
California, we contacted the California Crime Victim Compensation
Program, which in turn is working to provide assistance. Our consular
officers in Paris have also provided direct outreach and support to
Mrs. Pearl and we contacted the victim compensation authorities in
France to facilitate additional assistance. As the trial commences our
consular officers in Pakistan are in daily contact with family members
providing information updates.
A Travel Warning for Pakistan has been in effect since August 10,
1999 when we first obtained information that suggested strongly that
extremists based in Afghanistan were prepared to attack U.S. interests
in Pakistan. As we continued to receive information regarding the
safety and security of Americans in Pakistan, we subsequently updated
the Travel Warning nine times: on May 14, 2001, September 17 (after the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States and with the
announcement of the voluntary departure of non-emergency Embassy and
Consulate personnel and all family members in Pakistan), September 25,
December 13, January 28, January 30, March 2, March 18 and March 22.
The January 30 Travel Warning was the first reference to the kidnapping
of an American journalist (Daniel Pearl), after we received information
attributing his January 23 disappearance to a kidnapping. In addition,
the Worldwide Caution Public Announcement was revised on February 1,
2002 to reflect reports that American citizens may be targeted for
kidnapping or other terrorist actions.
September 11th Attack and Overseas Victims and Family
Members
In addition to providing assistance to Americans and their family
members who are victims of terrorism overseas, we have also worked to
disseminate information and provide assistance to the families of
victims of the September 11th attack who live overseas, including
foreign nationals. For example, working closely with the New York City
Mayor's Office we developed a method whereby family members of victims
of the World Trade Center attack could apply for an expedited death
certificate from overseas, with the assistance of consular officers at
our embassies and consulates abroad. We also disseminated information
about resources for victims of the attack to our consular officers
around the world so that they could provide this information to victims
overseas and to foreign governments. Through our efforts, information
about the Department of Justice victim assistance call center, the new
September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, the American Red Cross travel
and emotional assistance programs for overseas victims, and other
information has been widely shared. Our Visa Office also worked to
facilitate the review of visa applications from family members of
victims of the attack so they could travel to the U.S.
Americans continue explore the world, to travel to often dangerous
and interesting places and contribute to a better world. Our Passport
Agencies issued 7.2 million passports last year. Applications are down
just 7% this year. Terrorism has not deterred the determination of
Americans to live in the world. There can be no excuse, no
justification, and no rationalization for these acts of mass murder of
innocent people. We must continue to have a zero tolerance for those
who would harm our citizens working or traveling abroad. While every
such incident cannot be controlled, we are committed to both reducing
the potential for and mitigating the effects of such acts. We believe
this strategy will be effective.
The Department's efforts to protect Americans traveling abroad have
been facilitated by our ongoing dialogue with Congress, and we look
forward to working with you to seek opportunities for improvements in
international travel information and services.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee today. I will be happy to
answer questions that Members may have.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Bergin, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PETER E. BERGIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND DIRECTOR OF THE
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Bergin. Good morning, Chairman Boxer and Senator Enzi.
I am pleased to participate in this hearing on the important
subject of protecting Americans abroad from terrorist threats.
These are extraordinary times for all Americans. The threats
facing our country and our citizens from elements around the
world opposed to the United States of America and all we
represent are more numerous and challenging than ever before.
Diplomatic Security receives more than 4,000 threats each
year, a significant portion originating overseas. Our opponents
are tough and smart and we need to be smarter than them to meet
their challenge.
I appreciate the opportunity to highlight in this testimony
three Diplomatic Security Service programs of national
significance which play a major role in protecting our citizens
overseas. First, Diplomatic Security operates the Rewards for
Justice Program. Under this program the Secretary of State may
offer rewards for information that prevents or favorably
resolves acts of international terrorism against U.S. persons
or property worldwide. The United States of America Patriot Act
of 2001, which became law on October 26th, authorizes the
Secretary to offer or pay rewards of greater than $5 million if
he or she determines that a greater amount is necessary to
combat terrorism or to defend the United States against
terrorist acts.
Secretary Powell has authorized a reward of up to $25
million for information leading to the capture of Osama bin
Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders. The Rewards for Justice
Program has been effective. It has saved lives and brought
terrorists to justice. Since the mid-1980s the United States
has paid over $8 million to 22 people who have provided
credible information that puts terrorists behind bars or
prevented acts of international terrorism worldwide. The
program played a significant role in the arrest of
international terrorist Ramsey Yousef who was convicted of the
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The second Diplomatic Security program I would like to
highlight for you is the Antiterrorism Assistance Program, or
ATA. The ATA program is a significant line of defense for our
country against terrorism overseas. Since 1983 it has provided
training for more than 28,000 foreign law enforcement officials
from just over 100 countries. And 3,000 foreign police will be
trained just this year alone.
I would like to give you just one example of the
effectiveness of the ATA's program. In November 1997, 58
tourists were killed in an ancient temple site in Luxor, Egypt,
by an Egyptian terrorist group. U.S. tourists there at the time
narrowly escaped being killed because they were able to hide
from the terrorists, who were actually looking for Americans.
At the time there was no police communication and no
meaningful emergency response plan or capability. In the
immediate aftermath of this incident, ATA played a major role
in training and equipping Egyptian police, who now have a
security presence at every such tourist site and waterway in
Egypt. Two-minute police response teams are in place and every
district in Egypt has a crisis management plan that is
regularly exercised. The tourist sites there have not had an
attack on them in 4 years.
From my perspective, ATA provides security outside the
walls of the embassy, with benefits for the entire American
community.
The third important Diplomatic Security program to protect
U.S. citizens and interests abroad is the Overseas Security
Advisory Council, or OSAC. OSAC is a unique partnership between
the private sector and the government to address security
concerns of the U.S. private sector around the world. The
Bureau of Diplomatic Security through OSAC provides security
information to U.S. companies, nongovernmental organizations,
religious groups, and other private entities so they can make
informed decisions about how best to protect their people,
their facilities, and their investments abroad.
We accomplish this in several ways. The Council, which is
comprised of 30 representatives from the private sector, 4 from
the U.S. Government, as well as 7 U.S. Government technical
advisers, is the engine that drives OSAC.
OSAC also has threat analysts who are dedicated exclusively
to the private sector and are the person to person focal point
for the exchange of information. Our interactive Internet Web
site, which averages 50,000 hits per week, provides information
about the overseas security environment. We have 45 overseas
country councils that provide local forums for the sharing of
information, the bringing together of resident private sector
representatives with the United States Embassy or Consulate.
OSAC is now in its 17th year and continues to provide
critical information services to its 2,100 constituents.
Chairman Boxer, thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you and the subcommittee today. We appreciate your committee's
continued support. Without it, the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security could not be effective. I would be now happy to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter E. Bergin, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security and Director of the
Diplomatic Security Service
I am pleased to participate in this hearing on the important
subject of protecting our citizens overseas. The President and the
Secretary of State have made clear, and the President's proposed budget
reflects, that protection of U.S. Government personnel serving abroad
is a top priority. The Diplomatic Security Service has a major role in
ensuring their protection. Having just heard from my colleague
regarding her Bureau's efforts in protecting Americans working and
traveling overseas, I would like to spend a little time discussing my
Bureau's role.
As Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, I have a full
appreciation for both successes and vulnerabilities in the overseas
security arena. While the East Africa bombings are etched in our minds,
the tragic events of September 11 serve to demonstrate our
vulnerabilities here at home. Our resolve and response to the attacks
should serve as a warning to our adversaries. However, there will
continue to be those who are determined to exploit any void in our
security or our collective will. Certainly our citizens abroad would
then be considered potential targets.
While America was the target that day, there was every expectation
that a U.S. interest abroad, either government or private, would also
be targeted. Embassy by embassy security was assessed, enhancements
incorporated and additional agents deployed to embassies considered
most at risk. Inherent in the process was maximized communication
within each embassy and coordination with the Department on a continual
basis. DS focused primarily on the embassy community, but as my
statement will address, we were also working with our colleagues in
Consular Affairs to address the greater American presence security
issues.
Regardless of the political climate, such as that which followed
September 11, the protection of our citizens overseas is largely
dependent on a system of safeguards, established relationships,
intelligence sharing, communication, and dedication on the part of all
those involved. This system also places responsibility on the traveler,
employee, or dependent to take advantage of available information. The
men and women of the Department take pride in their ``protective''
role, but it remains a collaborative effort, relying on multiple
factors.
It is also important to understand that the goal of safety is met
on a daily basis, not generally by remarkable efforts, but rather
indirectly through a variety of seamless efforts, the results of which
cannot easily be quantified. Those efforts, in the form of a variety of
programs and liaison activities, provide a deterrent effect.
Regardless of our collective vigilance, there will continue to be
threats made against American interests. We receive more than 4,000
threats each year, a significant portion originating overseas. They
range from anonymous bomb threats and kidnapping plots to embassy
attacks and assassinations. Life-safety issues don't permit us the
luxury of choosing which to investigate. We dedicate our resources and
coalesce the resources of other law enforcement and government agencies
to acquire, assess, and use information received in a timely
responsible manner.
As the Department's security and law enforcement component, DS has
a broad mission, but its primary function is to provide a secure
environment for the safe conduct of foreign affairs. The Omnibus
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-399) directs
DS to be responsible for the protection of personnel, facilities and
information. That mission is divided into investigative and protective
operations, each of which has links to significant life-safety issues.
While it is impractical to list all programs, I would like to give a
brief overview of a few of our programs that fall within today's focus.
We provide protection for the Secretary of State, for resident and
visiting foreign dignitaries, and for foreign missions in the United
States. Our investigative authority includes passport and visa fraud,
clearly crimes that facilitate terrorist and other criminal attacks
against our national interests, both overseas and domestically. Our
Protective Intelligence Investigations Division (PII) is responsible
for investigations involving terrorist threats and activities directed
at personnel and facilities worldwide, that we are responsible for
protecting. We also participate in 14 of the Joint Terrorist Task
Forces (JTTF), with agents now being added to 5 more JTTFs. While
located domestically, the task forces have become an integral part of
America's response to terrorism overseas as well. The DS-JTTF role
focuses on our ability to use our worldwide platform to further the
JTTFs goals in an exigent manner.
In close cooperation with the FBI and other agencies, our
counterintelligence program is designed to deter foreign intelligence
efforts directed against our personnel and facilities worldwide. In
addition, DS is the operational component for the Rewards for Justice
Program, which has had a role in the capture of 22 persons responsible
for planning or executing terrorist acts against Americans. Rewards are
provided for information relating to an attack or the prevention of an
attack.
In addition, the Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) Program has proven
to be a vital coalition building effort, paying security dividends for
Americans. In cooperation with the Department's Office of
Counterterrorism, which provides policy guidance, the ATA program
provides America's first line of defense against terrorism overseas.
Since first authorized by the Congress in 1983, ATA has provided
training for 28,000 foreign law enforcement officials from more than
100 countries. It has built productive relationships and provided a
platform for exchanges of significant, timely information, a portion of
which has relevance to the safety of Americans in that particular
country or region. The ATA objectives include:
Enhancing the antiterrorism skills of friendly countries by
providing training and equipment to both deter and counter
threats of terrorism.
Strengthening the bilateral ties of the United States with
friendly foreign governments by offering training assistance in
areas of mutual concern.
Increasing respect for human rights by sharing with civilian
authorities modern, humane, and effective antiterrorism
techniques.
The training of foreign officials is invaluable in efforts to
provide protection for Americans overseas. By improving a country's
ability to defend its territory against terrorism and other criminal
activities, the ATA program improves protection and security for
Americans living and traveling abroad.
The events of September 11 demonstrated the need to maximize
training opportunities, particularly for those designated as frontline
countries. It has resulted in Congressional approval of a significant
ramping-up of the ATA program, both in terms of course offerings and
numbers of participants. As an example, courses such as Introduction to
Cyber-Terrorism, First Responder, and Criminal Information Management
Systems are being integrated as course offerings. More than three
thousand participants will be trained this year. Efforts to accommodate
still additional training classes continue.
I would suggest that the Homeland Security initiative also benefits
from ATA training. We can no longer protect our country from our
borders alone. Rather, we must look to halt foreign terrorist activity,
where it begins. The ability of foreign law enforcement to interdict
terrorists and other criminals abroad, results in our shores and our
families being made safer. That said, the more effective Homeland
Security programs are in protecting against domestic attacks, the
greater the potential that a ``softer'' more accessible American
interest target overseas will be at least probed by our adversaries.
That reality is a reason to remain vigilant and leverage every
available resource from both the public and private sectors in
addressing that environment as well.
To that end, a well-established and proven government-private
sector partnership continues to be recognized for both its current
value and its potential. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC)
established in 1986, is an ever-evolving mechanism for the sharing of
security expertise and information between the Department and the
private sector. Its goal is to maintain close liaison between the U.S.
government and U.S. businesses; thereby providing an excellent conduit
for the exchange of security information with and among U.S. companies,
non-governmental organizations, educational institutions and other
private entities; so they can make informed decisions about how to best
protect their people, facilities, investments and intellectual property
overseas.
As the threat of terrorism to American interests increases, the
value of the entire effort has taken on added significance. Organized
criminal efforts against both our citizens and our businesses require a
maximum effort to both prevent and mitigate the damage caused by the
targeting of Americans. We understand the mission and we, together with
our partners in Consular Affairs and the private sector, accept the
challenge on a daily basis.
The safety of both government and non-government employees and
dependents living abroad has direct linkage to the tenets of OSAC. The
thousands of employees or representatives of U.S. international
businesses or organizations abroad, U.S. citizens, and host or third
country nationals, represent a source of information which may be
pertinent to the security of the personnel and facilities of other U.S.
partners. OSAC, which is proud of its more than 2100 member
corporations and organizations, acts as the clearing house for the
vetting and exchange of information among private sector entities.
The Council itself is composed of 30 private sector representatives
from a very diverse group of businesses, such as financial, airlines,
pharmaceuticals, consumables, high tech, as well as government
representatives from the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, and
the Agency for International Development. In addition, there are seven
government Technical Advisors from: the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the National Security Agency, the National
Counterintelligence Center, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and
U.S. Customs. To be inclusive, the Maritime Security Council is also a
Technical Advisor addressing maritime security issues affecting cruise
lines and maritime travel.
In this remarkable coalition, with broad representation across the
government and the private sector, security needs transcend parochial
interests. The concept is not ad-hoc, or convened by a particular
threat or disaster, but rather a seasoned, tested organization of
professionals, each of which serves from 2-4 years. To date more than
60 firms have served on the council at the invitation of the Secretary
of State.
As importantly, the OSAC concept encourages the establishment of
Country Councils, which provide a forum for concerns to be addressed at
the local or regional level.
Currently there are OSAC Country Councils in 45 cities around the
world. The composition of each includes host country, and U.S. or third
country executives with security responsibilities for U.S. firms. The
Embassy Regional Security Officer (RSO) and a private sector
representative co-chair the council. Embassy support from the
Ambassador, the Foreign Commercial Service, Consular American Citizen
Services, and the economic or political sections adds to the sum.
What is also critical in the OSAC partnership is that every effort
is made to leverage technology on our behalf. Our adversaries now have
almost unlimited access to technology. We must also take full
advantage. For example, the OSAC INTERNET site (http://www.ds-osac.org)
focuses on security issues and contains press reporting from around the
world, unclassified embassy reporting, information on overseas
contacts. It also gives readers information on groups prone to
violence, upcoming global events anniversary dates, information on
cyber terrorism, a template for crisis planning and response, and other
specialized topics. An average of 60 new entries are made each day.
This Diplomatic Security managed site is user friendly, has a high
speed search engine, an interactive component and receives about 30,000
hits per week.
Further, OSAC publishes and distributes material prepared by
security practitioners in business and government to the private
sector. Publications such as: Emergency Planning Guidelines for
American Businesses Abroad, Security Guidelines for Families and
Children, Protecting U.S. Business Information Overseas and A Practical
Guide to Responding to a Biological or Chemical Threat are all
available on the web site or in hard copy.
The daily operation of OSAC programs falls to the Research and
Information Support Center (RISC). While candidly lean, it is most
effective. RISC is staffed by six Security Specialists who are experts
in their respective regions; and dedicated exclusively to the U.S.
overseas private sector. This staff of analysts is the focal point for
the exchange of information on security related incidents overseas
between the Department of State and the private sector in the United
States. The RISC is able to provide any enterprise incorporated in the
United States doing business abroad with timely security-related
information of an unclassified nature. The analysts average 200
consultations per month with U.S. private sector organizations.
Analysts search the world media every day and post relevant
information on the OSAC web site of security or business interest to
our constituency, including material they translate from foreign
language dailies. They also review unclassified State Department cables
from embassies around the world and abstract and post items of
interest. They are looking not just at events but at the political,
economic and social atmospherics which may impact U.S. business
decisions. They take the next step with the information and distill the
implications for U.S. organizations, companies, and their personnel and
financial assets abroad. Their commitment and abilities, coupled with
multiple support entities, has direct impact on Americans.
I previously mentioned that OSAC had proven its worth, but also had
visions for the future. I would like to share just two examples. Each
relates to this committee's interests in this hearing.
One current initiative is directed toward educational institutions.
OSAC, joined by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, has formed the
University Working Group to coordinate to develop safety programs and
establish ``best practices'' guidelines to increase security awareness
for students and faculty traveling and studying abroad. The University
Working Group will share their results with colleges and universities
throughout the country. The schools represented on the University
Working Group are:
Pepperdine University, University of Louisville, Ohio State
University, Arcadia University, University of Southern California and
Michigan State University.
Another initiative underway involves training. OSAC has worked with
the Department of State's Overseas Briefing Center to make available to
the private sector a two-day program to prepare employees from the
private sector to live and work overseas. It is very similar to the
training that State Department and other USG employees receive,
although it is being customized for a private sector audience. The
course covers topics such as personal security, cross-cultural issues
and security, specific tactics and trends and what the U.S. Embassy can
and can't do for persons living or traveling abroad.
I have taken this opportunity to share with you just a few of the
program areas that are intended to provide our citizens overseas with
an increased level of safety. However, from a Diplomatic Security
perspective, it would be shortsighted on my part, not to directly
address the mission of the men and women who serve overseas as Regional
Security Officers, engineers or technical security experts.
It is the RSO and their staff who remain the primary U.S. law
enforcement point of contact at more than 250 Missions. They are the
linchpins for security and law enforcement issues impacting the
physical safety of U.S. citizens abroad. While we in DS hold each RSO
to a high standard of performance, they continually evidence their
willingness to place themselves in harms way for people whom they don't
know, and probably will never see again.
As with most security operations, unless there is a tragic outcome,
we will never read of the initiative shown by our personnel or others
on an embassy roll. The efforts made by the RSO and others in the
Daniel Pearl case, or recent rescues of Americans in Jerusalem, while
known within the Department, received no direct media attention. I
raise these issues, to assure the Committee that this Secretary, and
the Department as a whole, takes the responsibility for Americans'
safety as a solemn duty.
In spite of our dedication and resources, there will be
circumstances and vulnerabilities, which result in attacks against
Americans overseas. However, none will be the result of our
indifference or lack of trying!
Mrs. Boxer, I thank you and the other Members of the committee for
being given the opportunity to appear here. I would now be happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members may have.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much, both of you.
I have just a couple of questions. It used to be that the
soft targets of these terrorists were journalists, businessmen
and students. I am wondering if you consider them soft targets.
It seems to me there has been a big change. I wonder if either
of you could comment on that.
Mr. Bergin. I will take that first. After the 1998 attacks
on our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the Department
came to the Congress for support to harden embassies abroad. We
have made significant headway in strengthening security at
embassies around the world, and that is good because the
transnational threat is one where one day it may be Suva in the
Pacific rim and then the next day it could be Asuncion in South
America.
So the view was that the threat was focused on the
flagpole, either the embassy or in the case of the USS Cole or
in Khobar Towers military personnel. In my view, Madam
Chairman, the threat, there is a blur now, distinguishing
between U.S. Government officials and American citizens.
Generally from my perspective, the world is more unsafe today
than it was prior to September 11.
Senator Boxer. Is what today? I am sorry?
Mr. Bergin. Is more unsafe today than it was prior to
September 11. That should give Americans reason for concern,
but they should not be paranoid or live in fear, because there
are practical, commonsense things that you can do to minimize
the risks.
Senator Boxer. Do you want to say what those are, because I
agree with you. I think these so-called soft targets are now
just targets. So if you have some advice you could lay out
here, it would be very helpful.
Mr. Bergin. I think the No. 1 thing that we see in the 21st
century is a proliferation of information. There is more
information in open source about what is going on in Americans'
communities, what is going on in the world. The key here is to
be informed.
One of the things that I encourage, because I was a, we
call them regional security officers. These are Diplomatic
Security special agents at embassies overseas. We have these
country councils where the embassy security folks meet with the
Americans in the community about security, and there is a
regular exchange of information in these forums.
Senator Boxer. I understand. So that is absolutely so and
Ms. Andruch pointed this out. So they get the information. But
you said it is more dangerous now than it was pre-9/11, that
the targets that used to be considered soft targets are more
vulnerable. So besides getting the information? Because I have
to say one thing about this information. A lot of the
information you get is from the intelligence community. Well, I
do not know--I am only speaking for myself, but a lot of these
warnings that come to us, you do not know what to do. Last week
it was do not go to the supermarket. They did not say that.
They said supermarkets may be a target.
Last year, right after September 11 there were other such
warnings, the bridges and so on and so forth. So what I am
asking you is what can Americans do, obvious things that you
have discovered that an American can do, a businessperson, a
student, a tourist? They have all the information. Look, for
example, I commend you on your information on the Philippines.
I lost a constituent. He was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, a tragic
thing.
Right now you are telling people do not travel in that part
of the Philippines. You are basically saying that, which I
really appreciate. It is very specific. But I am just concerned
that it is still vague in other situations.
So do you have, Ms. Andruch, do you have, specific advice,
since Mr. Bergin has said it is more dangerous and there really
are not so-called soft targets, it does not seem like, anymore.
Ms. Andruch. I guess I would say, again not to beat a dead
horse, but having as much information as possible. What we also
urge is that Americans have--until this tragic event happened
in the United States, we pretty much thought we were immune to
the terrorist incidents. Now we know that that is not true and
we have to pay a lot more attention to our personal security.
I think having the information, avoiding crowds, avoiding
demonstrations, trying not to look so ``American,'' as we tend
to do overseas. You know, I have had it happen when I have gone
to a post overseas, a stranger coming from the embassy can pick
me right out of that plane. I look, we look American. There is
not a lot we can do about that except perhaps try to blend in a
little bit more with the surroundings, and then check with the
embassy and consulate once there just for information that
might be specific to that particular area, to that particular
time, that is not yet out available to the public.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Enzi.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
I want to followup just a little bit more on that. U.S.
businesses that are operating overseas can pick up some of the
same travel advisories. Is there a special way of warning them,
and how are those warnings communicated, and does the business
community feel that it is effective?
Ms. Andruch. Do you want to start since that is kind of an
OSAC thing?
Mr. Bergin. Yes, Senator Enzi. We have a Web site, and it
is ds-osac.org, where businessmen--we have 2,100 constituents
who are American businesses or nongovernment organizations who
log onto us on a regular basis seeking information about what
is going on overseas. They can view that day up to the minute
reporting from not only the American media, but foreign press,
as to a situation in a particular country.
We have regular meetings with the business communities,
three each year, to talk about security. In November there is
an annual meeting where we bring up to a thousand American
businesses into the State Department and we talk about the
threat overview around the world. There has been very positive
feedback about the effectiveness of OSAC as a tool to getting
information out that they need to make business decisions.
Ms. Andruch. If I could add just a bit there, we have a
couple publications as well. One of them is from DS and it's
entitled ``Countering Terrorism: Security Suggestions for U.S.
Business Representatives Abroad.'' Then we have other pamphlets
for Americans traveling.
But to address your question about how we get that
information out, in this network that every embassy and
consular section has it uses whatever the best, whatever is
possible in that country, given the infrastructure, to
disseminate latest information as widely as possible. That is
often by e-mail now. In some countries it may be a radio
network or a phone tree, something as simple as that, to spread
the word very widely.
There was an interesting article. I do not know if you have
had a chance to see it. It was in the New York Times last week,
and it was from a family who actually traveled to Rome shortly
after we put out a public announcement where we had information
that met our criteria that something in fact may happen over
that Easter holiday. In fact he laughed about it and he said
they went. They were going specifically to a place that they
thought was safer because it would be less crowded and that was
during the time we were suggesting they not go.
They took our advice to heart. They said they still had a
wonderful time. It did not stop their vacation. They just
altered their plans slightly. So I think that is a good thing,
when we can get that out and let people sort of base their
decisions on the latest information we have.
Senator Enzi. To shift gears just a little bit, Mr. Bergin,
if American citizens abroad were to seek refuge in our embassy
or a consulate due to terrorist activities, what is the policy
on the diplomatic security that is offered? Is there a defined
period of time? Is it different for officials than for non-
officials, or does it even happen?
Mr. Bergin. Well, I have never personally experienced a
situation where Americans were seeking refuge in an embassy. I
know that there have been circumstances where the political
instability of a certain country requires an evacuation of
noncombatants out of an area and we work very closely with the
American community there. If the embassy is the place where you
assemble to be evacuated, that is well and good. But there are
other ways of handling that as well.
I would also add to what Ms. Andruch said. In order for us
to get this information that is significant for Americans to
make decisions, they really should register at the embassy, and
American businesses should register with their Overseas
Security Advisory Council, so that we can automatically e-mail
or fax information to them in preparation for their travel.
But personally, sir, I have never experienced a situation
where an American was seeking refuge in an embassy with respect
to terrorism, but certainly we would not turn them away.
Senator Enzi. So is there a current written policy on that
or are you just using common sense?
Mr. Bergin. Sir, I do not believe that there is a current
policy on this. I think this is a matter of common sense and
good judgment, reacting to a certain crisis that comes up.
Senator Enzi. A final question for either of you: What is
our current policy regarding negotiations to free Americans who
might be victims of kidnaping in any of these areas?
Mr. Bergin. The policy of the U.S. Government is that we
make no concessions and we do not pay ransom. There is an
element of the policy that is classified, that we would be
prepared to discuss with you in closed session, but that is
essentially the policy.
Ms. Andruch. I have with me, if you would be interested in
seeing it, it is actually an unclassified press statement that
was made concerning that not too long ago, and I can leave that
with you.
Senator Enzi. Thank you. I am aware a little bit of the
policy that we have for our Foreign Service officers and the
briefings that their families get to make them aware of what
that policy is. But I was not sure what it was for other
Americans who might be abroad. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Just following up, I think I have that here. The policy is
``the U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals
or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage.
The U.S. will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe
return of American citizens who are held hostage. At the same
time, it is the U.S. Government policy to deny hostage-takers
the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or
other acts of concession.''
Now, the issue that I have is the story that appeared in
the Washington Times on April 11 that said that the U.S.
Government facilitated the payment of $300,000 through a third
party in a bid to gain the release of two Americans held by the
Phlippine terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. The transaction was
completed before Easter. It goes on to say the Pentagon opposed
it, but the State Department was for it, and the Philippine
Government denies any money had been paid. Richard Boucher
refused to comment on the ransom report.
So can you shed any light on this at all, or would that be
something we would have to do in executive session?
Mr. Bergin. I am not aware of any payment, ma'am. We could
get that up to you in a separate, closed session briefing. But
I am not aware.
Senator Boxer. Do you have any information?
Ms. Andruch. No, I would have to agree. Again, there has
been so much and continues to be so much in the press, and much
of it is misinformation. So I would not be able to comment on
that press article.
Senator Boxer. Well, we would like to have the information.
If you can make it available to us, we would greatly appreciate
it. We would ask for it. We would ask you to take that back to
the highest levels. We just want to see a report that we
could--so we have some information on whether there are any
exceptions to this.
I wanted to end my questioning with a compliment. I see a
really interesting document here, ``Responding to a Biological
or Chemical Threat, A Practical Guide.'' This is terrific, and
I wonder--it is what I like to see because it is very specific:
warning signs of an attack or incident, such as droplets of
oily film, unusual dead or dying animals, people dressed in
warm weather with long sleeves, unexplained odors, unauthorized
spraying in the area, victims displaying symptoms of nausea,
and so on. It says what to do in case of an attack.
Is this something that our Office of Homeland Security made
available to you? Are they doing a similar book for our people
here?
Mr. Bergin. Actually, ma'am, Diplomatic Security produced
this publication about 2 years ago. We had a very modest
program before the anthrax scare here. This was sent out to all
embassies. We have trained diplomats and their families at 200
posts or so. It is in fact on our Internet site for all
Americans.
Senator Boxer. Very good. I want to show this to Senator
Enzi. If he agrees--this is a brochure--with me, then I think I
would love to see it given out quite a bit more to our people,
sent to our people, because I think it is very practical. It
tells you what to do. It would be a little hard to do some of
those things you talk about if you are just in a hotel room,
because it says get away from air conditioning and so on.
But I think this is a terrific, very clearly written
document. I wanted to thank you very much.
Senator Enzi. I would agree that it is an excellent
document, and it is cited in Senator Frist's new book on
bioterrorism.
Senator Boxer. Maybe we can work to get this to Tom Ridge
and maybe just have this available for our constituency,
because I think it could save lives. It is well done.
Has it been updated since 2 years ago as well?
Mr. Bergin. I do not believe so, ma'am. This was distilled
from conversations with Defense Department specialists, medical
specialists, a couple of years ago. It is contemporary.
Senator Boxer. Well, since September 11, I think it has
tremendous meaning to us right here.
I want to thank you so very much. We will put your full
statement in the record. You are welcome to stay if you want to
hear the next panel. If you have other appointments, we will
understand, but we will send you the record because we think
that it would be good for you to hear what some of these folks
have to say. So thank you very, very much.
Ms. Andruch. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. We really appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Bergin. Thank you for having us.
Senator Boxer. And any light you can shed on that ransom
deal would be helpful.
Panel two, if you would please come forward to the witness
table: Mr. Frank Smyth, Washington representative of the
Committee to Protect Journalists; Ambassador Vernon Penner,
former Ambassador, counterterrorism expert, vice president for
Corporate International Services at Crisis Management
Worldwide; Mr. Thomas Ondeck, president of GlobalOptions, Inc.;
Dr. Sheryl E. Spivack, assistant professor of Tourism Studies
at George Washington University.
We are very pleased, and we will call on you in the order
in which I just re-introduced you, and we really look forward
to hearing from you. Again, we are going to set the clock for 7
minutes and we will put your entire statement in the record. We
simply want to have time to ask you questions.
Mr. Smyth, are you ready to open this?
Mr. Smyth. Yes, I am.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I want to welcome all of you. You
have just been wonderful to cooperate with us and to come out
here today.
STATEMENT OF FRANK SMYTH, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, THE
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Smyth. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning. My
name is Frank Smyth and I am the Washington representative of
the Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ].
CPJ is an independent nonprofit organization based in New
York City that fights for the rights of journalists worldwide
to report the news freely, without fear of reprisal. I would
like to place in the record a copy of our recently published
annual report, ``Attacks on the Press in 2001,'' \1\ which
contains more than 500 individual cases of attacks against
journalists in more than 130 countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report referred to can be accessed at the Web site of the
Committee to Protect Journalists at http://www.cpj.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are grateful for this opportunity to address this
subcommittee. I have been asked to talk about what the U.S.
Government can do to ensure the safety of U.S. journalists
working overseas. This is of course an important issue and the
recent abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter
Daniel Pearl in Pakistan dramatically illustrates the risks
that U.S. journalists can confront.
Nevertheless, according to CPJ statistics the risk faced by
U.S. reporters working abroad is fairly small compared to the
risk faced by local reporters, particularly those covering
corruption, human rights abuses, and military operations. These
journalists are often targeted in direct reprisal for what they
write or broadcast. During the past decade, our research shows
that 399 journalists have been killed worldwide while carrying
out their professional work. Only seven of them were U.S.
reporters working overseas.
While I would like to briefly address the issue of the
safety of U.S. journalists overseas, I plan to devote the bulk
of my allotted time to discussing the larger threat to press
freedom around the world, specifically CPJ's concern that the
events of September 11 and the subsequent U.S. military
response have precipitated a global press freedom crisis.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and
commend the U.S. Government for the role it has played and
continues to play in working with Pakistani authorities to
ensure that the killers of Daniel Pearl are brought to justice.
However, we believe that this action is appropriate not because
Mr. Pearl was a journalist, but because he was a U.S. citizen
who was the victim of a crime. In fact, we are hard-pressed to
think of any other action that the U.S. Government might take
to protect U.S. journalists that would not do more harm than
good.
U.S. journalists reporting from dangerous areas around the
world, especially those places where the actions of the U.S.
Government have stirred local anger, rely on their perceived
neutrality to keep them safe. Thus, efforts by the U.S.
Government to protect U.S. journalists overseas risk having the
unintended effect of further endangering the journalists if
those efforts create the impression that the journalists are
somehow linked to the U.S. Government.
I want to highlight one action that CPJ believes the U.S.
Government should never take: using an American journalist as a
CIA agent. We call on the U.S. Government to reiterate its
commitment to never recruit U.S. journalists as spies or
government agents. We also call on the CIA and other government
agencies to enforce a firm policy that it will never permit CIA
agents to pose as U.S. journalists during undercover
operations.
Furthermore, we would like to see this policy expanded to
also bar the use of non-U.S. journalists as spies. The
perception or even the rumor that a local journalist works with
the CIA would obviously put him or her at considerable risk.
We have also been concerned that around the world
repressive regimes have appropriated the rhetoric of the war on
terrorism to justify the suppression of domestic criticism and
curtail press freedom. In other instances, authoritarian
governments appear to have taken advantage of the fact that the
world's attention was elsewhere while they launched domestic
crackdowns.
In Eritrea, for example, the government of President Isaias
Aferwerki shut down the independent press and jailed 13
journalists in a crackdown that began shortly after September
11. In Nepal, the government in November branded as terrorists
anyone who supports the country's Maoist rebels and imposed
emergency regulations that have been used to harass and
persecute journalists who report on rebel activities or who
work for publications seen as sympathetic to the Maoist cause.
Dozens of journalists have been detained since the declaration
of the state of emergency.
Similarly, Chinese officials have characterized
independence activists in the Muslim-majority region of
Xinjiang as terrorists, targeting journalists and other
intellectuals as part of a recently intensified crackdown on
the separatist movement. In Malaysia, the Home Ministry has
repeatedly blocked distribution of international publications,
including Time and Newsweek, that published articles about the
activities of Islamic militants within the country who may have
links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. In Kyrgyztan,
President Askar Akayev has used the threat of international
terrorism and the growing number of U.S. troops as excuses to
curb political dissent and suppress the independent and
opposition media.
And in Zimbabwe, Information Minister Jonathan Moyo has
described the independent press as terrorists and specifically
cited U.S. actions in justifying an independent media crackdown
there. ``We are watching events in the United States and
Britain closely as pertaining to media freedom,'' said Moyo
last year, according to a local report. ``These countries,
especially the USA, have unashamedly limited press freedom
since September 11 in the name of safeguarding the national
interest. If the most celebrated democracies in the world will
not allow their national interest to be tampered with, we will
not allow it, too.''
This is clearly an opportunistic response by Mr. Moyo, who
spearheaded the efforts to curtail the independent press in
Zimbabwe long before September 11. Nevertheless, it is sad that
Mr. Moyo is seeking to justify his government's repressive
measures by citing U.S. Government policy.
In fact, CPJ has criticized the U.S. Government in several
cases for taking action that we believe sets a very poor
precedent internationally. Specifically, CPJ expressed concern
about efforts by the State Department to censor Voice of
America broadcasts last year that included a telephone
interview with the Taliban leader Mullah Mohamed Omar. Later
Congress formally restricted the VOA from airing any such
terrorist views.
The U.S. Government also tried to control broadcasts
abroad. Last September Secretary of State Colin Powell asked
the Emir of Qatar to use his influence to rein in Al-Jazeera,
the Arabic language satellite station that is broadcast out of
Qatar and financed by its government. Secretary Powell's
request was followed by a formal diplomatic demarche by the
U.S. Embassy in Qatar.
In conclusion, while we believe that the U.S. Government
should take no new specific actions to protect U.S. journalists
working overseas because such action could do more harm than
good, we believe there are actions that the U.S. Government
should take to uphold and support press freedom around the
world. Specifically, we believe that the U.S. Government should
speak out against specific abuses and take active measures to
ensure that the policy and rhetoric of the U.S. Government is
never used to justify repressive actions against journalists
anywhere.
CPJ thanks the subcommittee for this opportunity and I
thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smyth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Smyth, Washington Representative, Committee
to Protect Journalists
Good morning. My name is Frank Smyth, and I am the Washington
Representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ is an
independent, non-profit organization based in New York City that fights
for the rights of journalists worldwide to report the news freely,
without fear of reprisal. I would like to place in the record a copy of
our recently published annual report, Attacks on the Press in 2001,
which contains more than 500 individual cases of attacks against
journalists in more than 130 countries. We are grateful for this
opportunity to address this subcommittee.
I've been asked to talk about what the United States government can
do to ensure the safety of U.S. journalists working overseas. This is,
of course, an important issue, and the recent abduction and murder of
Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan dramatically
illustrates the risks that U.S. journalists confront. Nevertheless,
according to CPJ's statistics, the risk faced by U.S. reporters working
abroad is fairly small compared to the risk faced by local reporters,
particularly those covering corruption, human rights abuses, and
military operations. These journalists are often targeted in direct
reprisal for what they write. During the past decade, our research
shows that 399 journalists have been killed worldwide while carrying
out their professional work. Only seven of them were U.S. reporters
working overseas.
While I would like to briefly address the issue of the safety of
U.S. journalists overseas, I plan to devote the bulk of my allotted
time to discussing the larger threat to press freedom around the world,
specifically CPJ's concern that the events of September 11 and the
subsequent U.S. military response have precipitated a global press
freedom crisis.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend the
U.S. government for the role it has played, and continues to play, in
working with Pakistani authorities to ensure that the killers of Daniel
Pearl are brought to justice. However, we believe that this action is
appropriate not because Daniel Pearl was a journalist but because he
was a U.S. citizen who was the victim of a crime. In fact, we are hard
pressed to think of any other action that the U.S. government might
take to protect U.S. journalists that would not do more harm than good.
U.S. journalists reporting from dangerous areas around the world--
particularly those places where the actions of the U.S. government have
stirred local anger--rely on their perceived neutrality to keep them
safe. Thus, efforts by the U.S. government to protect U.S. journalists
overseas risk having the unintended effect of further endangering the
journalists, if those efforts create the impression that U.S.
journalists are somehow linked to the U.S. government.
I want to highlight one action that CPJ believes the U.S.
government should never take: Using an American journalist as a CIA
agent. We call on the U.S. government to reiterate its commitment to
never recruit U.S. journalists as spies or government agents. We also
call on the CIA and other government agencies to enforce a firm policy:
that it will never permit CIA agents to pose as U.S. journalists during
undercover operations. Furthermore, we would like to see this policy
expanded to bar the use of non-U.S. journalists as spies. The
perception--or even the rumor--that a local journalist works with the
CIA would obviously put him or her at considerable risk.
We have also been concerned that around the world, repressive
regimes have appropriated the rhetoric of the war of terrorism to
justify the suppression of domestic criticism and curtail press
freedom. In other instances, authoritarian governments appear to have
taken advantage of the fact that the world's attention was elsewhere to
launch domestic crackdowns. In Eritrea, for example, the government of
President Isaias Afewerki shut down the independent press and jailed 13
journalists in a crackdown that began shortly after September 11.
In Nepal, the government in November branded as ``terrorists''
anyone who supports the country's Maoist rebels and imposed emergency
regulations that have been used to harass and persecute journalists who
report on rebel activities or who work for publications seen as
sympathetic to the Maoist cause. Dozens of journalists have been
detained since the declaration of the state of emergency.
Similarly, Chinese officials have characterized independence
activists in the Muslim-majority region of Xinjiang as ``terrorists,''
targeting journalists and other intellectuals as part of a recently
intensified crackdown on the separatist movement.
In Malaysia, the Home Ministry has repeatedly blocked the
distribution of international publications--including Time and
Newsweek--that published articles about the activities of Islamic
militants within the country who may have links to the al-Qaeda
terrorist network.
In Kyrgyzstan, President Askar Akayev has used the threat of
international terrorism and the growing number of U.S. troops as
excuses to curb political dissent and suppress the independent and
opposition media.
And in Zimbabwe, Information Minister Jonathan Moyo has described
the independent press as ``terrorists'' and specifically cited U.S.
actions in justifying an independent media crackdown there. ``We are
watching events in the United States and Britain closely as pertaining
to media freedom,'' said Moyo last year, according to a local report.
``These countries, especially the U.S.A., have unashamedly limited
press freedom since September 11 in the name of safeguarding the
national interest. . . . If the most celebrated democracies in the
world won't allow their national interests to be tampered with, we will
not allow it too.''
This is clearly an opportunistic response by Mr. Moyo, who
spearheaded the efforts to curtail the independent press in Zimbabwe
long before September 11. Nevertheless, it is sad that Mr. Moyo is
seeking to justify his government's repressive measures by citing U.S.
government policy. In fact, CPJ has criticized the U.S. government in
several cases for taking action that we believe sets a very poor
precedent internationally. Specifically, CPJ expressed concern about
efforts by the State Department to censor a Voice of America broadcast
last year that included a telephone interview with the Taliban leader,
Mullah Mohammed Omar. Later, Congress formally restricted the VOA from
airing any such ``terrorist'' views.
The U.S. government also tried to control broadcasts abroad. Last
October, Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the Emir of Qatar to use
his influence to rein in Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite
station that is broadcast out of Qatar and financed by its government.
Secretary Powell's request was followed by a formal diplomatic demarche
by the U.S. embassy in Qatar.
In conclusion, while we believe that the U.S. government should
take no new specific actions to protect U.S. journalists working
overseas (because such action could do more harm than good), we believe
there are actions that the U.S. government should take to uphold and
support press freedom around the world. Specifically, we believe that
the U.S. government should speak out against specific abuses and take
active measures to ensure that the policy and rhetoric of the U.S.
government is never used to justify repressive actions against
journalists anywhere.
CPJ is greatful for this opportunity to address this important
matter.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Smyth.
Ambassador Penner, counterrorism expert and vice president
for Corporate International Services, former Ambassador.
Welcome, Ambassador.
STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON PENNER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR CORPORATE
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, CRISIS MANAGEMENT WORLDWIDE, AND FORMER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR OVERSEAS CITIZENS
SERVICES, ANNAPOLIS, MD
Ambassador Penner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking the Chair for this opportunity to
speak on a subject to which I have dedicated a significant
portion of my career as a Federal servant, Foreign Service
officer, and most recently in private business. I hope that my
experience in consular affairs and currently as a senior member
of a risk consultancy organization will be useful to the
important work of this subcommittee.
Now, there are three things I would like to stress in my
oral testimony. First, that while Americans have always been at
risk abroad from terrorism in the last decades of the 20th
century, that risk is greater since the events of 9/11.
Second, but even with the greater risk, that does not mean
the roof is collapsing or that the world as we know it is so
much different or that we should stop traveling or working
abroad. I welcome your words when you talk about continuing to
encourage travel. I believe we can work together to meet that
greater risk by a combination of better intelligence and
information, more proactive countermeasures and unrelenting
awareness.
Third, in my personal view in this process there is only so
much the U.S. Government can and should do. Security is and
must be viewed as a shared responsibility, involving a number
of partners: the individual American, the employer if he or she
is working abroad, the host country, and the U.S. Government.
Now, about the first point, I do not think that much needs
to be said. We are all in agreement that there is a greater
risk to U.S. citizens abroad since 9/11. That needs no further
elaboration.
On the second point, and that concerns better information,
proactive countermeasures, and awareness, let me offer these
observations. I begin with the conviction that the State
Department takes its responsibilities very seriously for the
protection and welfare of American citizens abroad. When I was
the Deputy Assistant Secretary we used to call our OCS branch
the branch for four D's, the D division. It stood for the
detained, the disappeared, the distressed, and the deceased.
And already 20 years ago, we had categories numbering in the
thousands. How many attributable to terrorism? A relatively
small number, but with a very high profile because of the
political significance.
Now today, we see those numbers differently and the
potential for much greater casualties, personal property, and
major acts of terrorism in ways we never imagined possible.
We have heard from the State Department representatives,
the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security. I can only applaud them but they have to do more.
There must be a greater outreach to the traveling public and
expatriate communities. I think other means of contact should
be used, in drawing together groups and organizations like the
American Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for
International Business, the National Foreign Trade Council.
I believe there should be a greater participation by
embassies abroad in the activities of their local American
communities. I believe wider use of travel advisories should be
done and specifically point to what you yourself raised, Madam
Chairman, and that is possible trigger points or emergency
responses that citizens themselves should take.
There should also be an increased emphasis on holding host
countries responsible for the protection of U.S. citizens and
our expatriate public.
Finally, I recommend that we use in a greater means, if
possible, our own constituent posts, the consulates and
consulate generals. This is where the real outreach to America
occurs. I note in passing that there are fewer consulate and
consulate generals today than since the end of the War of 1812.
In providing all of these things, I think the State
Department is under considerable limitations. One limitation is
resources. It is interesting that in my last decades of work I
cannot remember a year when State Department received the money
it requested. Of the seven different posts I was assigned to in
Europe, three have now closed.
I attended very recently at my company's, my private
company's, expense one of these excellent OSAC courses. This
course had 60 participants in attendance, people ranging from
Boeing, Pepperdine College, the Lutheran Welfare League,
outstanding participation. Unfortunately, OSAC said that
because of funding they could not repeat the program more than
five times this current year. I find that unacceptable.
Another limitation is attitude. To be honest, consular work
is not considered the most career-enhancing in the State
Department. Neither is diplomatic security. I think we need a
top to bottom commitment to the concept that our success or
failure in foreign policy is not just measured in terms like
American interests, but in terms like American lives.
I think this is a job for professionals. Here we have
another limitation. I think too many well-meaning and highly
qualified people, for whatever political reasons, have gotten
themselves in protection and welfare, in consular work. My own
position in the State Department was filled by a political
appointee. I guarantee you that every career ambassador abroad
has done consular work. That is not, of course, the case with
the political appointees, who of course get a bit of consular
training.
But ultimately the State Department can only do so much.
This is where I think we should now open and look at the shared
responsibility factor. The first line of responsibility for
Americans in country x is that country's own security and law
enforcement personnel. Americans themselves must now take it
upon themselves to be aware of the risks.
Finally, as something that just occurred to me, I would
like to table some recommendations that my own organization has
pulled together, a professional organization, and suggest that
as a consular officer in the past I often passed on to
constituents, American citizens, lists of lawyers, lists of
doctors for their use. There should be no reason why Diplomatic
Security should not pass on a list of professional security
organizations when the case so warrants it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much for your very
specific advice to us.
Mr. Ondeck, president of GlobalOptions.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. ONDECK, PRESIDENT, GLOBALOPTIONS, INC.,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Ondeck. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity
to provide testimony to you today on this important topic. Our
company is a private risk management and business intelligence
company headquartered here in Washington. So we approach things
in this area from a private sector background rather than a
public sector background.
Now, as we talked about earlier in the hearing, more
Americans than ever are traveling to dangerous places overseas.
We have some tourist agencies who now use the whiff of danger
to attract U.S. travelers. For example, the Web site of one
tourist agency promotes travel to Bogota by describing this
city as ``dangerous but delightful.'' And indeed it is. Last
year nearly 3,000 people were kidnaped in Colombia, more than
any other country in the world. Colombia's murder rate is 13
times higher than the United States. It is home to
narcotraffickers, terrorists, guerrillas, paramilitary groups--
a lot of dangerous people. The State Department warns U.S.
citizens not to travel to Colombia. Yet still, American
tourists travel there.
U.S. business travelers do not avoid hot spots, either.
International travel is an indispensable part of modern
corporate life and for many business people working in foreign
high-risk areas just comes with the territory. That is
particularly true, of course, for journalists, who by the very
nature of their jobs are often at risk. Getting a story and
getting it right usually requires investigative work and it
often means traveling in dangerous areas and talking with
dangerous people.
All these dangers are further magnified by our Nation's war
on terrorism. The terrorists are now on the defensive, but they
are far from finished. They are looking to hit back and
American travelers are tempting targets.
Now, in light of this threat, what can we do to better
protect Americans traveling overseas? First, governmental
action. The government activities described by the first panel
are very important. However, they cannot of themselves be
expected to protect every American overseas. The State
Department issues individual country travel warnings, but many
Americans still choose to travel to dangerous countries.
U.S. consulates offer advice and assistance, but it has
been almost 100 years since the U.S. Consul in Tangiers
summoned an American battle fleet to threaten bombardment if a
kidnaped American was not released. The U.S. military provides
protection for journalists in coordinated pools operating in
war zones, but journalists are competitive. They seek to get a
scoop and to get the story that no one else has, and sometimes
that ends with tragic results. Last year 37 journalists were
killed, including 9 covering the war in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
A related problem is the kidnaping of Americans abroad. The
U.S. Government's policy is not and, in our opinion, should not
be to negotiate with kidnapers of American travelers, because
to do so would only engender more kidnapings. Sixteen years
ago, after Associated Press reporter Terry Anderson was
kidnaped in Beirut, he noted that his captors could not hope to
bargain with the U.S. Government. As Anderson stated, ``There
was nothing that the American Government can or will give
them.''
Now, beyond that, we get to the issue of private actions
that American travelers can take to better safeguard their
security. For top executive travelers, private security firms
such as ours, offer executive protection professionals, or
bodyguards. We offer specialized courses in security awareness,
terrorism awareness, and self-defense.
Then for the average traveler, there are a variety of
books, such as this book offered by our company. This is
entitled ``Protect Yourself in an Uncertain World.'' It
provides numerous specific suggestions. We agree with you,
Madam Chairman, that it is specific, concrete recommendations
and suggestions that are necessary to protect Americans when
traveling.
Some of the precautions that we recommend specifically--
there are numerous suggestions in the book--but some of the
ones that we recommend in particular are: First, you do not
have to be rich to be a target. Terrorists want to make a
political point and for that, any American will do. Second, do
not advertise your nationality. Blend in, wear clothes that
blend in. Third, curb your vanity. Expensive clothes and
jewelry always draw attention. Fourth, if possible do not
travel by yourself. There is safety in numbers. If possible,
hire a car and a driver rather than relying on taxis. Sixth,
stay away from tourist-oriented bars and nightclubs. By going
there you are making it easier for the bad guys to find you,
and alcohol and safety do not mix. Finally, stay alert, always
stay alert. Remember, you are not in Kansas anymore and if
something does not seem right walk away fast.
Madam Chairman, thank you very much for letting me testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ondeck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas P. Ondeck, President, GlobalOptions, Inc.
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on protecting Americans traveling abroad, and the risks and
difficulties of protecting journalists.
GlobalOptions is a risk management and business intelligence
company. We provide a variety of security services for businesses and
executives. Our staff of professionals include former intelligence and
law enforcement officers, veterans of America's elite military units,
and legal and crisis communications specialists. We also offer courses
in security awareness, terrorism awareness, managing terrorist crime
scenes, executive protection, self-defense, avoiding workplace
violence, evasive/aggressive driving techniques, and firearms safety
and marksmanship.
More Americans are traveling internationally to places that are
increasingly dangerous and participating in activities that are more
hazardous than ever before. Additionally, travel abroad is more risky
as a result of our nation's war on terrorism. Warnings have been issued
that extremist groups may be planning attacks against Americans and
facilities abroad. As a result, providing protection is becoming an
ever more difficult challenge for the U.S. government.
Some 27 million Americans journeyed overseas in 2000. While the
most popular destination remains Europe, Americans increasingly are
exploring more remote and potentially dangerous locations. Travel to
Africa in 2000 expanded by more than 12 percent. Americans going to
East Asia and the Pacific jumped by 15 percent--the fastest growth
anywhere.
Americans are not content to just bask in the sun on a sandy beach
or relax in a luxury hotel. By increasing numbers, travelers are
seeking adventure and the ``smell of danger.'' Adventure packages from
travel agencies offer everything from mountain climbing to hang
gliding, dog sledding, and sea kayaking. Special trips are even
available for tornado chasing. If you want to trek to the top of Mt.
Everest, venture into the depths of the Amazon rain forest, or blast
off to space (Mark Shuttleworth from South Africa became the second
space tourist when rocketed to space last week.), there is a travel
agency that will make your dreams come true.
Tourism agencies seek to attract travelers regardless of the
danger. A website on Bogota, for example, promotes the city as
``dangerous but delightful.'' Last year, nearly 3,000 people were
kidnapped in Colombia, more than any other country in the world. Its
murder rate is 13 times higher than the U.S. The country is home to
narcotraffickers, guerrillas, paramilitary groups and other criminal
elements. Bombings are also common. The U.S. State Department has
warned U.S. citizens against traveling to Colombia. Still, Americans,
placing their lives in jeopardy, continue to journey to Colombia,
enticed by its miles of virgin coastline, warm and charming people, and
exotic wildlife.
Travel warnings for more than two-dozen countries have been issued
by the U.S. State Department. Many Americans will heed these warnings,
but not all. There will always be adventurers who are drawn to places
filled with danger and intrigue.
U.S. businesses cannot be expected to avoid hot spots either.
Travel is an indispensable and unavoidable part of modern corporate
life. For many companies, working in high-risk areas comes with the
territory. As an example, untapped oil reserves are mainly located in
remote, violent areas in developing countries. While the U.S.
government can provide diplomatic support, protecting Americans in
these hazardous areas is an immense challenge.
There was a time when the world was less complicated and America's
supremacy protected citizens abroad. In May of 1904, the U.S. State
Department received a cable announcing a ``most serious situation.'' A
``band of natives'' had kidnapped Ion Perdicaris, an American citizen,
while he was in his country house in Tangier. The American Consul
General, Samuel Gummere, requested that a man-of-war be sent at once.
President Theodore Roosevelt had just dispatched 16 warships to the
Mediterranean on a ``goodwill cruise'' and he ordered a contingent of
four big battleships and three cruisers to steam to the Moroccan port
to rescue Perdicaris.
If Perdicaris was murdered, Roosevelt warned the U.S. would demand
the life of the murderer. The United States threatened to land Marines
and seize customs. The show of military force led to the release of
Perdicaris, who commented: ``Thank Heaven. It is that flag . . . and
that Preside . . . who have had me dug out from amongst the kabyles!
That flag and no other!''
Given the vast number of Americans journeying abroad and the
world's political problems, it is no longer possible for the U.S.
government to provide this level of security. Still, the State
Department and consulate offices offer a wealth of information to
inform travelers about hazardous places and provide assistance when
there is a problem. But it would be wrong to suggest that the
government can somehow protect every American from every peril.
It is the fact that so many people are traveling today and the
understandable limitations of government to provide assistance that has
led to the establishment of risk management companies, such as
GlobalOptions, and medical evacuation services like MedJet, which will
dispatch a jet to fly members home if they are hospitalized abroad.
Because government is necessarily limited in what it can do to
protect Americans, it is important for international travelers to take
the initiative and learn how to best protect themselves. The need to
take precautions is especially warranted given America's war on
terrorism. In March, the State Department issued a worldwide alert.
U.S. citizens face an increased risk of attack from terrorists while
abroad and may be targeted for kidnapping. Additionally, consulate
offices may be temporarily closed or suspend services. In light of the
heightened threat, following are some general precautions for
travelers:
Be alert. Keep your mind focused on potential danger signals
and not personal items. The key to good personal security is
constant vigilance. An attack most often occurs when you let
your guard down.
Evaluate the necessity of your trip. In areas beset by
terrorism or political instability, determine if your task can
be accomplished by telephone or some other method.
Learn as much as possible about each country you plan to
visit, including the history, religion, government, and
language. Knowing the foreign phrases for such words as
``help'' and ``police'' can save your life in a crisis.
Don't advertise your nationality. Try to wear clothes that
blend in with the native population.
Avoid known tourist haunts. If there is a threat of
terrorism, avoid cafes, nightclubs and other tourist spots that
might be targeted because they attract Americans.
Keep a low profile. Prominent persons should avoid
announcing their visits in advance. News articles and photos
increase your risk, since they alert criminals and terrorists
to your presence. Never allow your travel itinerary to be
published. Consider booking reservations using an alias or
using the name of your traveling companion.
Don't dress in expensive clothes and jewelry that will drew
unnecessary attention. Especially leave religious jewelry at
home.
Choose an airline carefully. The safest airlines tend to be
from places that are not part of political blocs or embroiled
in local conflicts, such as Sweden, Switzerland, and Singapore.
Book a flight on a large aircraft if possible. It takes more
manpower and effort for terrorists to seize a large jetliner.
Lone hijackers or small groups are more likely to target
smaller planes.
Check where a flight originates and stops en route. Flying
the most direct route minimizes the time you spend sitting in a
vulnerable terminal.
Avoid countries with permissive attitudes toward terrorism.
Airport security is the final line of defense, not the first.
Some countries, such as Greece, have failed to take effective
measures to combat terrorism and remain a dangerous transit
point.
Beware of taxis. Do not take the first taxi that approaches
when you walk out of a hotel. A number of Americans have been
kidnapped in this fashion. Don't be afraid to turn down a ride
if a cab appears unsafe or the driver acts strange.
File a trip plan with someone you trust. Brief the person on
what to do if there are any problems and check in with this
person frequently.
Stay away from unattended bags. They could contain a bomb.
Avoid trash bins, telephone booths and other enclosures that
could contain an explosive.
Hit the ground when hearing shooting or an explosion. Pull
your arms over your head for more protection.
Kidnapping for ransom or for political reasons, once a rare crime,
has increased dramatically in recent times. In some developing
countries, such as Colombia. kidnappings have reached epidemic
proportions. Below are a few suggestions to help victims avoid and/or
survive a kidnapping ordeal.
It can happen to you. Time and again, kidnap victims explain
they didn't take security precautions because they thought they
could never be a potential target.
Vary your routine. For Americans living abroad, take
different routes to work, mix-up your routine so your
activities are difficult to predict.
You don't have to be rich to be kidnapped. Since most
officials and corporate executives have some security,
kidnappers often target mid-level personnel who are readily
accessible and do not take elaborate security precautions.
If you resist, you may be killed. Most kidnapped victims are
released in exchange for a ransom or other consideration.
Kidnappers want victims alive, not dead. But you increase the
likelihood that you will be killed or injured if you resist
forcefully.
Don't shoot off your mouth. Do not brag that your company or
family may have plans for securing your release in the event
you are kidnapped.
Don't assume you can reason with terrorists to win them
over. Avoid political discussions for you may only antagonize
your captors. Try to be a good listener.
Don't offer advice. Should your captors accept your
suggestion and it fails, you will likely be blamed.
Generally, don't try to escape. Your best chance of freedom
and survival lies in your exchange for ransom or your rescue.
If you fail, you will likely be subjected to harsh punishment.
protecting journalists
Foreign correspondents, by the very nature of their jobs, are at
risk. Getting a story--and getting the story right--usually requires
investigative work. And that means traveling through, or to,
potentially dangerous areas and talking with questionable people. While
some of the above recommendations can reduce the chance a journalist
working in a hostile land may be attacked or kidnapped, it is
impossible to eliminate all risk.
The abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel
Pearl is tragic, but not surprising considering where he was working--
Karachi. Pakistan--and the people he was associating with--an Islamic
militant leader.
Reporters must weigh the risks when working on a story. They do not
have the luxury of conducting a security assessment or having
bodyguards for protection. On January 23, the day Pearl was kidnapped,
he met with an official at the U.S. Consulate to assess the danger of
meeting with Sheikh Mubarik Ali Gilani, an Islamic extremist. The U.S.
official advised Pearl against the meeting. But later that day, when
Pearl received a call from a contact, he decided to go ahead with the
meeting and soon thereafter was kidnapped.
Sixteen years ago, Associated Press reporter Terry Anderson was
taken hostage in Beirut. He points out that few reporters have been
kidnapped. Anderson believes the reason is that it discredits the
kidnapper's cause. ``All they're going to get is bad publicity,''
Anderson offers. The abductors cannot hope to bargain with the
government for the life of a journalist. ``There is nothing that the
American government can or will give them,'' Anderson states.
From a security point of view, there are limitations in what
government can do to protect journalists. Reporters are highly
competitive and seek to get something that no one else has. To get a
scoop, they rush to dangerous parts of the world, often arriving before
U.S. troops. They file reports from the pathway of a hurricane. With
satellite cell phones and laptop computers, journalists can report and
file stories from nearly anywhere. This means they are no longer
dependent on government resources to send stories to their editors, as
they were in the past.
Reporters do not take unnecessary risks just for the thrill of it.
They take risks, as Anderson explains, ``because it is important.''
Pearl was investigating a story potentially linked to the accused shoe-
bomber Robert Reid.
Pearl is one of nine journalists killed in the Afghanistan region
the past year. Four died in an ambush, one during a burglary, and the
other three in combat situations. Throughout the world, 37 journalists
were killed in 2001.
In conclusion, let me stress that traveling to other lands can
clearly be dangerous. But by taking security precautions the risks are
manageable. No American should hesitate to see and experience different
countries and cultures. No corporations should, out of fear, reject the
need to open markets and expand operations abroad.
The chance of an ordinary American being killed or injured in a
terrorist attack or being taken hostage is slim. The risks are higher
for diplomats, members of the military, and corporate executives in
selected parts of the world, and as such increased security measures
are necessary.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much for that very practical
advice.
Dr. Spivack. I am going to remind everyone again, you are
assistant professor of Tourism Studies at George Washington
University. We understand that you are George Washington's
expert on data concerning safety of U.S. citizens and tourists
abroad.
STATEMENT OF SHERYL ELLIOTT SPIVACK, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF TOURISM STUDIES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON,
DC
Dr. Spivack. Thank you. One minor, minor little correction.
That is Associate Professor.
Senator Boxer. Associate, sorry.
Dr. Spivack. I am also the Director of the Tourism Policy
Forum, an international think tank at the university. This
operates under the International Institute of Tourism Studies.
I certainly thank you for giving me the opportunity to
present testimony on factors related to the protection of U.S.
citizens while they are traveling abroad. I have for the last
15 years conducted research and published articles on the
health, safety, and security, security issues related to the
growth of international tourism.
International tourist arrivals in 2001 decreased by 1.3
percent to 688 million. This was the first time in 50 years of
recordkeeping by the World Tourism Organization that any
significant decrease was measured. Since World War II nothing
appeared able to flatten world travel growth, including wars,
conflicts, and world recessions. Though specific acts of
terrorism against tourists in a region would adversely affect
travel to that region, they would not affect overall world
travel growth. In essence, people simply traveled elsewhere and
to regions they perceived as being safe.
In 2001, two factors combined to produce the first decline
in recorded history on international arrivals: the global
economic slowdown which began at the end of 2000 and the
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11.
Nevertheless, recovery is underway and the World Tourism
Organization predicts the third and fourth quarters of 2002 to
regain to pre-crisis levels. The rebound of travel after the
September 11 attack thus took approximately 7 months.
What this suggests is that the demand and thirst for travel
is hard to dampen. In fact, travel appears to be a fundamental
right. The ability to move freely around the world, to unite
with family and friends, to understand other cultures and to
conduct business across continents, and in sum to enlarge on
one's perspective of the world.
After all, the sine qua non of Western understanding has
always been and always will be, the more we know the more we
understand. Travel allows Americans and all peoples of the
world to do just that. It is for that reason that tourism has
often been suggested as the most accessible, if not vital,
force for peace.
In addressing the Tourism Policy Forum's international
assembly in Washington, DC, 1990, Stephen Joel Trachtenberg,
president of the George Washington University, stated: ``In a
world of this kind, travel and tourism, seen from the view of
what is good for the present and the future of planet Earth, is
an absolute necessity, the most truly consequential industry of
all if we're to have even a running good chance of achieving
workable world peace.''
At the same time, this growing travel phenomenon raises
some pragmatic issues. International travel does impose certain
health and safety risks, the scope of which is just beginning
to be recognized by policymakers, industry, and the traveling
public. Concerns related to health, security, and legal
liability are very much at the forefront of the minds of all
stakeholder groups. International conflicts and wars, growing
levels of crime and terrorism, are real factors that will
continue to influence the development of tourism and the
movement of people to areas and away from others.
Fortunately, understanding the conditions, factors, and
trends that comprise the American traveling spirit is
fundamental to creating the policies and partnerships necessary
to successfully safeguard the promises travel offers. I suggest
these trends to be examined:
Trend No. 1: The travel experience changes. Americans are
traveling in record number to remote destinations throughout
the world in search of high adventure and often high-risk
travel. Today's traveler is very different from the traveler of
the early sixties, whose motivation was often oriented to
status and prestige, and the product offered, superficial
discovery.
The traveler of the 1960's who visited 12 countries in 10
days has been replaced by the traveler who demands authenticity
of experience, greater physical involvement, risk-taking and
adventure. Growth has exploded for adventure excursions, hiking
up Mount McKinley, packing the jungles of Ecuador, cutting a
path through the overgrown forests of Brazil. For soft
adventure experiences, tourists are flocking to view glaciers
from bush planes, scuba-ing through underwater parklands, and
rounding up cattle on ranches.
The old notion of a vacation being a relief from labor has
been replaced by a much more physically, intellectually, and
socially dynamic one. Yet, while travelers are seeking greater
physical adventure, risk-taking and authentic experiences, they
are nevertheless demanding to be assured of safety in all
phases of travel, from transport and recreation to food
services and accommodations.
Protecting the interests of all these travelers in the most
remote of destinations around the world is a challenge for all
stakeholder groups, the destinations, the industry, and the
tourists themselves.
Trend No. 2: The travel market diversifies. Several new
markets of travelers have emerged as a result of changes that
have occurred within political and social spectrums. One
observed trend is a market focus that has shifted from a
broadcasting to a narrowcasting of consumers. Special
population groups which have heretofore been overlooked are
emerging in this decade as major new markets. One such special
population is the physically disabled or physically challenged.
Another group that has emerged with the much-touted demographic
shift of the aging of the population is the senior traveler.
In addition, the marketplace has become much more complex,
with the number of individuals who now elect non-package tours
and also the number of travelers who travel alone.
Unfortunately, that is increasing. Last year 31 percent of all
American international travelers traveling for leisure traveled
alone.
Trend No. 3: Travel services multiply. With the growth of
international travel, so has grown the multiplicity of
businesses and services to take the travail out of travel. One
particularly interesting service to form are those companies
that have established a niche in the insurance business by
providing medical information assistance programs for
travelers. Essentially, these services sell an information
network program to insurance companies, who add the special
coverage as an added benefit to existing health policies. The
assistance provided includes locating competent doctors,
arranging for medical attention, providing language and
translation assistance, monitoring medical progress, and
arranging for emergency evacuation if medically necessary.
I do have--I understand that is my time limit. I do have
some other comments and perhaps considerations as we look at
how we might work together in terms of partnerships between
government, nongovernmental organizations, universities,
industry, and tourists in making certain that we do everything
possible to make travel an experience that is safe and secure.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Spivack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sheryl Elliott Spivack, Ph.D., Associate
Professor, the George Washington University
I thank you for allowing me to present testimony on factors related
to the protection of U.S. citizens while they are traveling abroad. I
am a professor at the George Washington University, School of Business
& Public Management, and for over the last 15 years I have conducted
research and published articles on health, safety, and security issues
related to the growth of international tourism.
International tourist arrivals in 2001 decreased by 1.3% to 688
million. This was the first time in fifty years of record keeping by
the World Tourism Organization (WTO) that any significant decrease was
measured. Since World War II, nothing appeared able to flatten world
travel growth including wars, conflicts or world recessions. Though
specific acts of terrorism against tourists in a region would adversely
affect travel to that region, they would not affect overall world
travel growth. In essence, people simply traveled elsewhere and to
regions they perceived as being safe. In 2001, two factors combined to
produce the first decline in recorded history on international
arrivals: the global economic slowdown, which began at the end of 2000,
and the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11.
Nevertheless, recovery is underway, and the World Tourism Organization
predicts the third and fourth quarters of 2002 to regain to pre-crisis
levels. The rebound of travel after the September 11th attack thus took
approximately seven months.
What this suggests is that the demand and thirst for travel is hard
to dampen. In fact, travel appears to be a fundamental human right; the
ability to move freely around the world, to reunite with family and
friends, to understand other cultures, to conduct business across
continents, and in sum, to enlarge one's perspective of the world.
The sine qua non of the western world has always been and will
always be the more we know the more we understand. Travel allows
Americans and all people of world to do just that. It is for this
reason that tourism has been often suggested as the most accessible if
not vital force for peace. In addressing the Tourism Policy Forum's
International Assembly in Washington, DC, 1990, Stephen Joel
Trachtenberg, President of The George Washington University stated,
``In a world of this kind, travel and tourism . . . seen from the view
of what's good for the present and future of Planet Earth . . . is an
absolute necessity . . . the most truly consequential industry of all
if we're to have even a running good chance of achieving workable world
peace.''
At the same time, this growing travel phenomenon raises some
pragmatic issues. International travel does impose certain health and
safety risks, the scope of which is just begiiming to be recognized by
policymakers, industry and the traveling public. Concerns related to
health, security and legal liability are very much at the forefront of
the minds of all stakeholder groups. International conflicts and wars,
growing levels of crime and terrorism are very real factors that will
continue to influence the development of tourism and the movement of
people to certain areas and away from others.
Understanding the conditions, factors and trends that comprise the
American traveling spirit is fundamental to creating the policies and
partnerships necessary to successfully safeguard the promises travel
offers.
Trend #1--The Travel Experience Changes
Americans are traveling in record number to remote destinations
throughout the world in search of high adventure and, often high-risk
travel. Today's traveler is very different from the traveler of the
early 1960's, whose motivation was often oriented to status and
prestige, and the product offered--superficial discovery. The traveler
of the 1960's who visited twelve countries in ten days has been
replaced by a traveler who demands authenticity of experience, greater
physical involvement, risk-taking and adventure. Growth has exploded
for adventure excursions--hiking up Mt. McKinley, hacking the jungles
of Ecuador, or cutting a path through the overgrown forests of Brazil.
For soft adventure experiences tourists are flocking to view glaciers
from bush planes, ``SCUBAing'' through underwater parklands, and
rounding up cattle on western ranches. The old notion of a vacation
being a relief from labor has been replaced by a much more physically,
intellectually and socially dynamic one. Yet, while travelers are
seeking greater physical adventure, risk-taking, and authentic
experiences, they are nevertheless demanding to be assured of safety in
all phases of their travel--from transport and recreation to food
service and accommodation. Protecting the interests of all of these
travelers in the most remote of destinations around the world is a
challenge for all stakeholder groups: the destinations, the industry,
and the tourist themselves.
Trend #2--The Travel Market Diversifies
Several new markets of travelers have emerged as result of changes
that have occurred within political and social spectrums. One observed
trend is a market focus that has shifted from a broad-casting to a
narrow-casting of consumers. Special population groups, which have,
heretofore, been overlooked, are emerging in this decade as major new
markets. One such special population group is the physically disabled.
Another group that has emerged with the much touted demographic shift
of the aging of the population is senior travelers. In addition, the
marketplace has become much more complex with the number of individuals
who now elect non-package tours and also the number of travelers who
travel alone. Last year, 39% of all American international travelers
traveling for leisure, traveled alone.
Trend #3--Travel Services Multiply
With the growth of international travel, so have grown a
multiplicity of business and services to take the ``travail'' out of
travel. One particularly interesting service to form are those
companies that have established an niche in the insurance business by
providing medical information assistance program for travelers.
Essentially these services sell an information network program to
insurance companies who add the special coverage as an additional
benefit to existing health policies. The assistance provided includes
locating competent doctors and arranging for prompt medical attention,
providing language and translation assistance, monitoring medical
progress and arranging for emergency evacuation if medically necessary.
Trend #4--Travel Information Amplifies
The diversification of the travel experience and the travel market,
coupled with advances in telecommunications technologies, has resulted
in greater consumer information demands on the travel industry and
inbound and outbound countries. As an indicator, the U.S. State
Department's Travel Advisory website is one of the most popular visited
government websites. Clearly the Internet has had significant impact on
planning and delivery of travel services. Bill Gates predicted that the
Internet would have most impact in the areas of health, education,
travel and entertainment. The fact that travel now generates the most
revenue in business to consumer e-sales is indicative of this trend.
These trends suggest that desire for international travel is not
going to abate, nor is the need to address the safety and security
needs of a diversifying market of U.S. travelers. Addressing the
complexities of safety and security for individuals traveling abroad
will depend on an international understanding between all countries
that benefit from the large growing tourism industry. Clearly, it
should be understood that:
The rights, safety and health of travelers is both an
obligation and market opportunity for government and businesses
alike. Governments and industry must maintain the highest level
of standards in developing and directing policies that respond
to health and safety considerations of all user markets.
Governmental and non-governmental agencies on the national
and international level must work with the tourism industry to
create a better exchange in the collection of timely and
accurate data. In the same measure, adequate educational
programs must be developed, utilizing current technology to
alert travelers of the safety conditions and situations that
could be potentially harmful or threatening. Travel advisories
must go beyond State Department advisories, and provide
realtime information that will contribute to the health
concerns of the traveling public.
Countries which depend on tourism for supporting its
economic structures and development must diligently safeguard
its product, assuring that products will be delivered in the
fullest consideration of the health, safety and well being of
both travelers and residents. Governments who wish tourism to
be a beneficial industry in their country cannot have only
regard for tourist dollars but must have equal regard for the
protection, health, safety and well-being of their visiting
guests.
I thank the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity
to appear before this committee.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, and we will put all your
statements in the record.
It is sort of an interesting Catch 22, Senator Enzi, that
is emerging here. On the one hand, if you travel in groups of
Americans that is a problem. If you travel alone it is a
problem. So clearly it is a challenge, but we are going to
figure it out.
I was very taken, Mr. Smyth, with your testimony,
especially dealing with the CIA issue because as I look over
it, we are trying to be positive here. What can we do to make
journalists safer? Clearly, you do not want the heavy hand of
government protecting you to the point where you have no
credibility in covering a story abroad. I totally understand
that.
But you did raise the question of the CIA possibly using
journalists or posing as journalists. Now, I am not familiar
with the guidelines. Has there been a statement from the CIA on
their policy regarding this issue?
Mr. Smyth. As I understand, the CIA is prohibited at the
moment and has been since the 1970's from using journalists as
undercover operatives or from posing, having agents pose as
undercover operatives. However, as I understand, it is possible
that that policy could be waived by Executive order. The debate
came up again, I believe, in 1996. There was some discussion
about the possibility of waiving those restrictions.
Fortunately, that debate ended without any changes.
But we would like to see a blanket affirmation that that is
not the case and will not be the case in the future.
Senator Boxer. With no exceptions?
Mr. Smyth. Right, with no exceptions.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am very interested in this. I have
not discussed it really with Senator Enzi, but what I plan to
do as a result of your testimony is to get a briefing from
Director Tenet on this point, because I think if we look back
at the Daniel Pearl situation that issue was raised. Of course,
immediate denials. But I would like to talk with him about it.
I want to thank you for that.
Now, my understanding is that you in fact were detained for
18 days during the gulf war?
Mr. Smyth. That is right, I was detained for 18 days in
Iraq.
Senator Boxer. During the gulf war by Iraq.
Mr. Smyth. After the gulf war, and I was captured during
the uprisings after the gulf war against Saddam, that is
correct.
Senator Boxer. You were covering Iraq post-gulf war?
Mr. Smyth. Right, I was covering the Kurdish rebels in
northern Iraq, and I myself was accused of being a CIA agent.
Senator Boxer. You were? Who was it who detained you?
Mr. Smyth. We were captured by Iraqi Army special forces
and then transferred to Iraqi military intelligence agents, and
then transferred to an Iraqi prison until our release by Iraqi
Ministry of Information officials.
Senator Boxer. How many of you were there?
Mr. Smyth. There were four of us, three journalists and an
armed guerrilla guide. Gad Gross, a journalist, and our armed
guide, Battei Abdullah Rahman, were captured and executed; and
myself and a French photographer were captured an hour later
and we survived and were both held for 18 days together.
Senator Boxer. Can you attribute something that happened
there to your safe release, if you had to think why?
Mr. Smyth. I think the U.S. Government raised my case in
particular in military to military contacts, I was told later.
I think that was useful to some degree, but I also think that
also helped convince some Iraqi military intelligence officers
that, since the U.S. Government was concerned about me, that
perhaps I was what they were claiming.
I think what really was instrumental in my release was the
ad hoc campaign that was mobilized by my journalistic
colleagues, including CPJ, for whom I did not work at the time,
to mobilize a campaign, including appeals made on CNN, I think
that were instrumental.
Senator Boxer. Well, it did not work for Danny Pearl.
Mr. Smyth. No, it did not, unfortunately.
Senator Boxer. I just have one more question. I want to
thank all of you because this has been really good.
Ambassador Penner, we did not have a written statement from
you. You wrote it from the heart and you just delivered it. You
had mentioned some specific things you think the State
Department could do more of, could do better of, and you were a
little critical. Is it possible for you to get that in a letter
to me and to Senator Enzi so we can take a look at your
specific proposals?
Ambassador Penner. I will do my best.
Senator Boxer. Because if we agree with you and then we can
team up, maybe we can see if we can do better over there.
I want to thank you again and ask my colleague if he has
questions.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes, I have a
couple.
Again, I do want to thank all of you for your testimony. It
has been helpful. I am anxious to get a copy of the book and
read it.
Mr. Ambassador, on your comments, one of the things that I
have been working on since I got here was to have a State
Department liaison office with the Senate on the Hill. When we
are doing travel abroad most of it is arranged by the military
liaisons, who all do have offices here on the Hill and work
with us frequently and have the added benefit when they are
traveling with us of being able to mention a few things that
the military needs. And coincidentally, when we are in a
foreign country and visiting there, we usually get to see the
military installations that are of importance in that country.
We spend a few minutes with the embassy, who are also
having security difficulties and special needs that would help
the country. So I am hoping that we can find a small cubbyhole
where we can put people up here. I think that would both
enhance our security and the security of the embassies.
It has also been my hope that when we meet with people from
foreign countries, which people on this committee particularly
do, that that liaison office could then arrange for us to have
an interpreter, one from our side. The other side brings
interpreters, but I have always wondered whether they were
actually saying what I said.
I just was in Russia on a trip and worked with them on some
cooperation items and I had three interpreters with me who were
from the University of Georgia, and was surprised to find the
number of times that the interpreter from the other side and
the interpreter from our side were arguing over definitions.
For instance, their word for ``security'' and their word for
``safety'' is the same word, but they are two absolutely
different things and could make a difference to embassies and
particularly to security agreements that we are having.
I appreciate your comments, too, about the political
appointees. I roomed with the same person for 3 years during
college who became a career ambassador or a career Foreign
Service officer. So when I travel in these other countries I
kind of look at the people that I meet and try and determine
whether they are political appointees or career folks, and
there is a difference, not a vast difference in some instances,
but there is a difference in the information that is conveyed
to us.
I do have some questions for all of the members of the
panel, but since we are running out of time, if we can have the
record open, I will submit those. But I do want to ask Dr.
Spivack a question. I appreciate her coming today. I am a
graduate of the George Washington University, so I appreciate
the accumulation of expertise that has been put there.
I have been working on terrorism insurance for buildings
and it occurred to me that probably the travel industry also
has some needs on the insurance side. I think some people
insure to make sure that if their trip gets canceled they can
be reimbursed and that sort of thing. Can you give us just a
little update on what some of the travel insurance needs are,
how they have been affected since September 11? Is there a
problem with that?
Dr. Spivack. Well, there has been for a number of years
travel assistance programs available for travelers. The
particular organizations that have made a lot of use of these
are organizations such as universities, the World Bank, the
IMF, that have a large number of employees abroad at any one
point in time. So they negotiate, they are almost like blanket
riders to policies that create an information network, travel
assistance network for travelers when they are traveling abroad
or living abroad.
Essentially what it is is a number of preferred providers
throughout the world that can bring immediate attention. All
you have to do is be able to get into an 800 number or to a
telephone number and you are connected to multiple providers
worldwide, receiving anything from language assistance, if you
are detained by the police assistance is given in those
situations, if you need psychiatric counseling.
It is a fairly large, extensive array of services that
these travel assistance programs provide.
Senator Enzi. Has that gotten more difficult since
September 11 to get? Have the rates gone up? Are you aware of
any changes?
Dr. Spivack. I am not aware of any rates going up. There
are pretty standard procedures with universities and large
organizations, as I said, who have many people abroad at any
one given time. There are certain credit companies that, if you
purchase your airline ticket through a credit company, you
automatically get that travel insurance.
Again, these programs have been around for many years. I
think people are more aware of them. I think September 11 did
bring that attention to the minds of people to look at all
kinds of assistance programs that might make their travels more
safe or give them the perception of safety.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, and I appreciate your testimony.
If we can leave the record open, I will have a list of
questions.
Senator Boxer. We will leave the record open.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Let me just again thank you all. In addition
to this CIA question which I am going to pursue, another
interesting point was made about the responsibility of the host
country. I am not sure if it was Mr. Ondeck or it was
Ambassador Penner. In a world where Americans are really, with
our trade agreements--and we have one on the floor right now--
really helping the people of the world because we have a very
open trade policy--unfortunately, unlike many of them, we do
get out there and buy their products. I mean, they owe us
something to help us.
One of the things they could do is to make sure that when
Americans travel abroad, whether it is business people who are
in fact there on a business trip--and I would love to have a
copy of your book so I can show colleagues on the committee
what is being done in the private sector about this, because I
do worry about the availability. You know, it is easy to say we
have this on our Web site, but I am taken with the suggestion
that there be more outreach and that there is not enough
outreach.
Ambassador Penner. Madam Chairman, let me give you one
specific example. Any ambassador going and serving abroad gets
a fairly detailed list of instructions, a kind of a letter of
introduction. I would be hard-pressed--I have not seen one
recently. Certainly when I went out as ambassador, there was
virtually no mention of consular affairs or protection and
welfare in my letter of instructions.
Now, I realize this goes back 15 years. Nonetheless, I am
convinced there has yet to be a commitment from all sides of
the State Department that consular affairs is as important as
it is. I would suggest that the drafter of those letters of
instructions come from the regional bureaus.
I am struck by Senator Enzi's comment that he is sort of
crafted by the military people who prepare his own trips. I
agree with you completely and I support that State Department
career people should be involved. Similarly, consular officers,
professionals, should be involved as well in the process, and
that may be something to pursue.
I only note in passing that there has never been an
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs who has been
a career consular officer. I do not want to disparage the
outstanding people that have been there, and I have served
there myself, but I feel that we have reached the stage, and I
think all our colleagues agree, the threat is so much greater
that we have to engender a professionalism into what we are
going to be doing about these things.
Senator Boxer. I so appreciate it. The reason I wanted to
hold this hearing now, not following some horrible incident,
and we did not do it right after Danny Pearl, this is a good
time to come forward with these ideas. So I would like to issue
a challenge to all four of you. It would be very helpful to me
to just sit down on one piece of paper and say, these are the
four things I think the committee ought to pursue, five things
or two things or one thing.
I think I know from your testimony, but I would like to
even get it down in a more precise way. What I will do when I
receive that is discuss that with Senator Enzi. If he and I can
team up in certain of these proposals, I know we will. And
because we do not team up that often, I think we will get--on
other issues of a domestic nature--when we do team up on this,
I think we would have some clout.
So we are very thankful to you all for coming here today,
and we look forward to this followup I hope that you will be
able to do for us. In the mean time, I am going to start the
followup on my own.
We stand adjourned, and again thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
-