Vulnerability Of United States Critical Infrastructure - Research Paper Example

Vulnerability Of United States Critical Infrastructure Contents Sr.# Topic Pg. # 1. Abstract 2 2. Thesis Statement 3 3. Introduction 3 4. Critical Infrastructure: Meaning, Definition & Scope 4 5. Reducing Vulnerabilities: Analysis & Discussion 7 6. Protecting CIs: Recommendations & Policy Options 10 7. Conclusion 13 References 14 1. Abstract Critical infrastructure comprises of a range of systems and assets which are vital for the survival and sustainability of any country and any inefficiency within its systems would result in serious damage or injury to the physical or economic security of the nation as well as lead to widespread injury to the public health1. In nations having open societies such as the United States which has a wide assortment of critical infrastructure and vital resources that are highly susceptible to radical assaults, for instance terrorism, defending or eradicating such vulnerabilities may require implementation of strategic policies which would solidify the security of the nation’s assets and alleviate any detrimental consequences in the event of an impending threat: either human or natural. The existing system appraisal techniques and defense policies are relatively insufficient in combating the mounting threat to the country’s critical infrastructure. Hence there is an urgent need for developing a robust and standardized risk appraisal policy as well as protection policy through a methodical assessment of various factors and issues and analysis of the intricate networks which will help in averting, dissuading and alleviating the impact of such threats. This study aims to scrutinize the various methods which are adopted and implemented currently, and suggest alternatives to categorize prioritize and defend the U.S. critical infrastructure; risk assessment initiatives; and best practices through establishment of comprehensive susceptibility appraisal approaches. 2. Thesis Statement The vulnerability of U.S. critical infrastructure can cause potential damage to the nation's physical, social and economic security and can be prevented only through the combined efforts of public private partnerships. 3. Introduction For the smooth execution of our daily activities, we need to rely heavily on a range of socio – economic activities including banking and finance, transportation of goods as well as people, communications, and basic amenities such as provision of electricity, water supply etc. Homeland security as well as the capability to scrutinize, dissuade, and counter external aggressive acts rely on several of these activities in addition to other more specific activities such as collecting intelligence reports and controlling and governing police and armed forces. A severe interference in these activities that disrupts or hampers its competence / capabilities could trigger off a series of events which may significantly affect a country's well being. Critical infrastructures of a nation are highly vulnerable to external threats caused by natural disasters or aggressive human acts. If attacked, it might pose substantial threats to the life and property of the citizens of the country and jeopardize their capability for a sustainable living. Such critical infrastructures or CIs are generally concentrated geographically and are highly susceptible to events such as natural disasters, epidemics, or terrorist attacks. Any potential harm caused to a nation’s infrastructure might culminate into far reaching disparate effects, costing billions of dollars and spreading far past the immediate vicinity of the said commotion. The potential of natural disasters to disrupt the social and economic security framework of a country reaffirms the geographic vulnerability of a country and is evident from the large scale damage to national property (U.S. Energy and Chemical sectors) that resulted from the Katrina hurricane in 2005 while the disaster caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks testifies the extent and scope of damage caused by human hazards. As such incidences emerge, the U.S. Federal agencies continue to develop policies and measures to combat such external threats and restrict their extent and scope of damage through policy making and other strategic measures. For instance, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 enables the establishment of new liquefied natural gas import workstations in varied ports by assigning absolute freedom of authorizing its positioning by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Similarly, the Gasoline for America's Security Act 2005 enables the erection of geographically dispersed oil refineries2. 4. Critical Infrastructure: Meaning, Definition and Scope The term critical infrastructure was referred largely with respect to the competence of a nation's civic works. However, in the mid 1990s, the term assumed a whole new meaning owing to the mounting threat of global terrorism which influenced the policy makers to re-evaluate the scope and definition of the term "infrastructure" and incorporate it within the milieu of homeland security. The number of such critical infrastructure sectors as well as forms of assets which are regarded as critical in terms of homeland security; have been advanced and commonly extended by consecutive national government reports, regulations, as well as administrative orders. According to the USA Patriot Act 2001, the term “critical infrastructure” is defined as: “Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters”3. The United States National Strategy offers a precise list of infrastructure sectors as well as assets which are considered as critical for the nation's sustainability. These include4: Agriculture and Food Emergency Services Banking and Finance Energy (except nuclear) Chemicals Government Facilities Commercial Facilities Information Technology Commercial Nuclear National Monuments / Icons Critical Manufacturing Postal and Shipping Dams Public Health and Healthcare Defense Industrial Base Telecommunications Drinking Water / Water Treatment Transportation It includes all those systems and / or assets whose failure or incapacity to respond to external threats is likely to cause disastrous health consequences or mass fatalities equivalent to those caused by the utilization of weapons of mass destruction; weaken the capability of federal departments as well as agencies to execute critical tasks and operations or guarantee the wellbeing and security of the general public; demoralize the competence of state and local government to retain law and order and provide least essential yet indispensable public services; harm the ability of the private sectors to guarantee the systematic and methodical execution of the economy; cause a dismal outcomes on the financial system through the destruction of other critical infrastructure; or demoralize the public's confidence and assurance in the national financial and political institutions. The United States federal policy on protection of the nation's critical infrastructure requires the federal government authorities to work closely in conjunction with the states, localities as well as the owners of such critical infrastructure including those in the public as well as private sector in order to ascertain and recognize the particular assets and systems which form a crucial part of the nation’s critical infrastructure5. 5. Reducing Vulnerabilities: Analysis and Discussion Critical infrastructures offer various fundamental services without which civilizations may not be able to flourish normally. This report seeks to analyze, understand and investigate into the extent to which our society is vulnerable to breakdown of a range of critical infrastructure systems and assets which are crucial for the sustainability of the Western societies. These include: power, gas, water, transportation, as well as communication. Each of these assets and systems contain certain inherent limitations or flaws, such as high degrees of complications: including bureaucratic or technical; compromising security features, and faces various pressures, including exposure to natural disasters and malevolent assaults. Efficient administration of such critical infrastructures depends on the critical evaluation of its extent and scope, as well as the likely impact of failure on the society at large, as well as the determination of competency of the existing risk governance provisions. The Presidential Decision Directives or the PDD governs the functions and obligations for several government agencies which are entrusted with the responsibility of initiating a counterterrorism response in the wake of a calamity. These directives bestow upon all the Executive Branch Departments as well as Agencies, the duty of ensuring that their employees and amenities, and the citizens and services within their authority are wholly sheltered against intimidation, violence and other forms of hostile aggression. Probable measures to minimize the menace and impact of breakdown of such critical infrastructure systems and assets, include accumulating standby capacity, ascertain that network development takes place in a rational manner, and establish adequate and efficient alternative support systems, and ascertaining the sufficiency and diligence of the risk appraisal methods which facilitate the obligatory decision making process. Policy makers, thus, must play a substantial role in initiating the required changes to defend and protect the best interest of the society as well as its citizens. Figure 1: Performance Measures for the Infrastructure Protection and Risk Management Program6 The principal obligation of setting goals and developing appropriate and efficient policies, for defending a country’s critical infrastructure rests with the government. However, it requires an equal participation and involvement of the private sector in terms of ensuring proper implementation of the policies to achieve the desired goals in order to curtail or restrict the vulnerability of privately owned as well as corporate assets. The National Strategy for Homeland Security reflects conventional notions of market failure that are rapidly becoming obsolete. Considering the current state of affairs: the rise in complex and critical assets and systems which can be categorized as CIs; and the simultaneous rise of global threats such as terrorism and other natural hazards; the attitude of the government which advocates the development of plans and policies for protection of CIs, as the sole responsibility of the private sector is a recipe for disaster. This is evident from the fact that in the United States, almost 85% of the CIs are privately owned7. Thus, the private sector alone is insufficient to cater to the security needs and provide adequate investments for developing measures to ensure security and protection of its assets. An asset or system is regarded as 'critical' when services offered by it are fundamental to the national security. Globalization and industrialization has caused significant additions in the list of infrastructures which are legitimately considered as vital and is still growing. Moreover the threat of cataclysmic terrorism has led to the formation of a novel association between the two key elements i.e., the national security and regular corporate decisions in private organizations which are involved in offering infrastructure services. This conflict in interests as well as criticality of services offered has further complicated decision making. The case of CSX Railroad and the District of Columbia substantiates this fact. After the Jan 2004 train crash in South Carolina which resulted in the release of a deadly chlorine gas, causing substantial damage to the public health and safety, the district's City Council passed an act banning the transportation of hazardous materials within close proximity of the U.S. Capitol without a permit. This act was a clear reminder of the failure of the federal government to prevent and defend the city from potential terrorist threats. However, the proposed legislation was subsequently invalidated after; CSX claimed that such an act would adversely affect the rail service around the country as transporting hazardous material shipments around the city would add hundreds of miles and several days of transit time8. The 21st century has radically transformed the meaning and scope of what comprises of national defense. It no longer is restricted to defending and protecting its geographical boundaries from external threats, but encompasses within its gamut, a wide range of activities and measures that seek to protect and preserve its assets and systems that are critical for the overall development of a nation. The policy makers, hence, must understand the urgency and need, and adapt to the emerging trend of environmental externalities, in a world, where such factors have abruptly become pervasive. In an open society like the United States of America, elevated barriers and bulky fortifications would hardly suffice as efficient alternatives of reducing or eliminating the nation’s collective vulnerabilities. It calls for a combination of nationwide policies with significant involvement of the private sector enterprises that seek to form goals and measures that seek to construct capabilities for deterring and anticipating attacks on the nation’s CIs including natural as well as human; that tends to disrupt the provision of such crucial services and developing efficient response measures for achieving swift recuperation in the event of such attacks. 6. Protecting CIs: Recommendations & Policy Options Since the primary responsibility of reducing CI vulnerabilities rests with the federal government, it should devise policies and frameworks that seek to encourage the equal participation of private sector organizations as well. For instance, both the government as well as the private sector firms may arrive at a common consensus regarding the various options that can be adopted and implemented to eliminate or reduce the risk of potential national damage arising out of geographic concentration of such CIs. Such a measure will help the private firms involved in provision of crucial infrastructure services in suitably regulating their respective infrastructure practices and align them with their own personal goals and objectives – that of maximizing their economic gains and at the same time considerably reduce the governmental responsibility of providing adequate protection to such CIs singlehandedly. The government may adopt practices that encourage the private sectors involved in the provision of services which are considered as critical, in managing their assets and systems. These may include provision of insurance premiums or development of internal corporate risk management programs which help the firms in retaining their hold on monetary benefits and protecting their commercial interests, at the same time, assisting the federal government in reducing the risk of geographic vulnerability of privately owned critical infrastructures. The adoption of such policies that discourage geographic concentration of privately owned critical infrastructure facilities would help in influencing the private sector organizations in relocating their bases. The policies may include environmental protection laws that seek to protect and preserve undisturbed natural areas from destructive development facilitated through establishment of commercial units; offering cost reductions to the private sector organizations for considering less vulnerable areas for establishing their business units; as well as policies that seek to offer economic deregulation. Alternatively, the federal policies may seek to raise the standards currently required for construction, design and operation of the CIs. These standards may relate to protection of CIs from natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods or acts of human aggression such as the ones witnessed on September 11, 2001. Moreover, apart from policies that seek to protect such CIs, the government must devise equally effective frameworks for offering support and assistance, post such events. These may include making available adequate shelter, food and healthcare facilities; restructuring the affected communities and increasing and ensuring adequate provision of federal aid to the victims. Ultimately sustainable federal policies must ensure both the prospective compromises / adjustments which are present at the firm level between competence and susceptibility, and for the organizations and the enticements which are likely to affect such tradeoffs. All in all, such policies must ensure establishment of incentive systems that encourage investments for improving deterrence measures, enhancing faster response and ensuring efficient and adequate recovery in the event of such probable attacks; ascertain implementation of sufficiently forceful in-house procedures - including better system dependability, of privately owned organizations; restrict obligatory expenditure on organizations in order to ensure the competency of the nation’s economy; and developing policies and measures which take into consideration the convenience of the general public, the profitability of the private organizations as well as issues relating to national security. 7. Conclusion In a market economy, where there is a co-existence of public as well as private sector organizations conflicting interests are bound to arise. The shareholders in the private sector organizations would like to ensure steady profitability and positive return on their investments while the government is more interested in protecting and defending national interests. Thus an effective combination of both these key stakeholders, involved in provision and defending of critical infrastructure services is the only effective and viable alternative to eliminate risks and reduce vulnerabilities. Enhancing capabilities in the United States for prevention, recovery and response relating to attacks on critical infrastructure will not be easy, considering the country's vastness both geographical as well as economical. In the long term, responding to this challenge will not only require changes in the technologies and structures adopted by threatened firms. It will also require improving the effectiveness of private strategies and public policies, reflecting an emerging balance of public private roles and responsibilities. The key challenge of safeguarding the nation’s critical infrastructure is comprehensive and all – encompassing in nature and hence requires a wide range of alternatives; and as U.S. corporations gear up for confronting such challenges, they must consider relinquishing the existing unyielding public – private framework to adopt a more flexible, reliable and elastic alliance between the public and private actors. In conclusion, such an alliance between the public and private sector organizations that addresses a range of operational issues will eventually lead to the development of adequately efficient, if not decisive, solutions. References: Linden, E. V., Addicott, J. F., Johnson, P. B., (2006). Focus on Terrorism, Nova Publishers, Pp. 197 - 199 Forest, J. J., (2006). Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure, Greenwood Publishing Group, Pp.421 Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, FY 2008 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (2009) Critical Infrastructure Protection, Information Sharing and Cyber Security Issues, viewed: April 17, 2009, from: Auerswald, P. E., Branscomb, L. M., La Porte, T. M., (2006). Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Pp. 10 Department of Homeland Security (2009) National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Partnering to Enhance Protection and Resiliency, viewed: April 17, 2009, from: < http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf > Read More