France's homeland security challenges and national policy responses

France's homeland security challenges and the policies and actions of that nation in response to these issues.

The homeland security and counterterrorism procedures were pushed into overdrive after the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil and the following terrorist attacks that occurred in different parts of Europe like the UK and Spain. The overall need for the safer and more thorough procedures was agreed mutually across both continents; however, the procedures and their application are much different across both the continents.

The major difference between the two states is this: the U.S. government has tried to completely restructure and reorganize their prior homeland and border security procedures while the European states have merely tried making adjustments in their existing counterterrorism and security structures. Both states have however focused on common aspects like communication effectiveness and response time to threats, natural and man-made, in their quest to improve the overall homeland security structures.

Understanding the depth of the situation and the September 11, attacks, homeland security procedures in countries all over the world have been altered and enhanced. Annual funds allocated to the security within and on the borders of countries have increased significantly and the high-risk security procedures on every entry and exit point of countries have now become a global phenomenon. The figure below is a pie chart showing how the countries stack up with the overall percentage of homeland security investments and market share for a majority of the nations who have undergone significant changes since the September 11 and subsequent attacks on the U.S. And European soils respectively (Arie, 2005):

In this paper, we will highlight the following aspects of comparative homeland securities measures:

1. The overall discussion of homeland security laws and principles implemented in the U.S. And France;

2. The overview of the departments that are responsible for homeland security within U.S. And France and the possible similarities between two structures; and

3. The overall challenge that both governments tackle on a day-to-day basis dealing with natural or man-made attacks and how they deal with them.

Body

The French Ministry of the Interior is the main task force that takes care of the entire security structure of the European states, and hence is the largest and most far reaching security organizations in the world today. In France, it oversees the main and general security concerns of the state and controls the main security providing sections including the French National Police, fire brigades as well as the Gendarmerie along with the overall civil defense structures. It also oversees the communication and association between the local, central and national government authorities and manages the passport issuance, ID card and license issuance as well as the voting and campaigning activities during political elections.

Communication is perhaps the most important part of the overall control and management procedure of the French Ministry of the Interior. The overall success that the ministry has had over the years has to be directly or indirectly related to the formation of standardized consensus on the important issues that impact that states (Barber et al., 2005). The main aspects that the standardized consensuses need to be formed in every community that can possibly face attacks, man-made and/or natural, and need to be on the following functions of the homeland safety and protection system:

1. The overall cost-benefit ratio of the system and strategy being employed

2. The overall functional efficiency of the system

3. The overall security of life provided by the system

4. The overall decrease in probability of death and destruction from the attacks, man-made and/or natural

5. The overall impact that the system has on the standard of living and quality of life for the region

The border security and homeland security structures have an element of extreme importance in the existence of human life especially in the modern world when a majority of the world commerce and trade is on such a high rise and can be rarely ever traced and monitored 100%. The need for the homeland security and protection systems against the potential perils that can be caused by similar attacks is a conscious decision by the nations that the overall importance and benefits of the trade far outweigh the perils especially if these perils can be avoided, prevented or protected through efficient systems. Hence, it is safe to say that the overall standardized consensuses formed by the French Ministry of the Interior follow a certain feedback pattern (Voortman, 2003). This feedback model or pattern can be explained trough the use of a basic communication model. Hence, if we were to analyze the basic communication structure of the French Ministry of the Interior, it would look somewhat like the figure below:

One of the researchers who used a modified feedback structure was Wilde in his 1994 study. Wilde (1994) explained that the feedback model could also be used to structure the overall behavioral patterns of humans when they make conscious or subconscious decisions on potential hazards. Similarly, the basic communication model can be modified to analyze the overall social structures for making decisions that involve risk assessment against the attacks on homeland security, natural or man-made. For example, since the European states are only looking for major alterations in the systems and structures that already exist for their homeland security needs, a recommended feedback system for the homeland security and protection setup model would look somewhat like this:

The feedback structure above for a homeland security and protection system, the prior analysis is also further linked to the overall results attained after the integration stage. The noises represent the possible hurdles that a decision making body might face when implementing a particular security system. These hurdles could be linked to prior analysis done and how they apply to the current structure as well as simply indicate an error in the communication of objectives from one stage to the next.

If one was to look at a homeland security and protection model more specifically, it could involve the aspects of rise in potential threats and destruction capabilities of enemies, it could also include factors like anticipated threat levels (will be discussed in detail later) that have been wrongly evaluated from prior records and need to be re-evaluated at a later stage to have more comprehensive, current and authenticated threat level numbers. The table could then be adjusted as below:

Furthermore, looking at the departments in France that tackle the homeland security concerns include the various intelligence agencies and organizations, specialized legal committees, police forces and emergency responsive teams that have been formulated specifically to tackle the homeland security concerns especially those that are a direct result of a terrorist attack. However, unlike the Department of Homeland Security formed within the U.S., the French government does not have a specific department dedicated to the phenomenon of homeland security.

Discussing the departments and the responsibilities within France and its organizations, we can see that

The Ministry of MOI, as mentioned earlier, oversees all civil protection and security concerns and is the managing authority in case of a terrorist threat/attack.

The MOI is responsible for the response to the threat as well as the rebuilding and recuperation after the threat has been dissolved; or, in the event of an attack, after the attack has been prevented or after it has occurred.

The overall national response methodology an principles are normally designed and monitored by the Directorate of Defense and Public Safety (DDSC) appointed with the MOI.

The subsidiary authority if an attack or threat is eminent is the Council for Internal Security (Le Conseil de securite interieure, or CSI). This particular authority was established in 2002, after the September 11 that occurred the year before in the U.S. Hence the overall policies and principles implemented in this particular council were in response to those attacks (Canicule, 2004).

The CSI has a regular workforce that is led by the French President and includes in its committee the Prime Minister, the Ministers of the Interior, Justice, Defense, Economy and Finance along with other officials if and when the need arises.

Currently, the CSI is led by Philippe Massoni who has served as a successful and popular public official for a long times.

The overall plan of attack and structure for France is very different from that of the U.S. France basically has 90 different managerial areas (Shapiro and Susan, 2003). Each of these 90 is them governed and controlled by a prefect who is basically a government or public official employed with the central government branch in Paris. Furthermore, France appoints the perfect to do the tasks that the governors or local assemblies would do normally i.e. handle the regional affairs, controlling on behalf of the president and/or prime minister, communicate and monitor or the workings of the local or regional police forces or firefighters, monitor the policies and activities of Les Compagnies Republicaines de la Securite, or CRS, management of the investigation and intelligence organizations like the Gendarmerie. Furthermore, the military within France, unlike in the U.S., is used on events that require drastic recovery processes like floods (natural) or terrorist attacks (man-made). But the MOI would not be in control of the military in such cases (Lindstrom, 2004).

"Today, France has 'a pool of specialized judges and investigators adept at dismantling and prosecuting terrorist networks.'" (Perelman, 2006)

"France has a system, Vigipirate, used at moments of danger to the country. Instituted in 1978, Vigipirate has two levels, which can be activated by the president without legislative consent. The first level, 'simple,' is activated when a threat appears imminent. The government may call up reserve police and rescue personnel, and will deploy police to sensitive sites such as embassies, the subway, train stations and airports, and fuel infrastructure, including nuclear plants (approximately 50% of France's electricity is derived from nuclear power). The government activated this first level at the outset of the first Gulf War in 1991. It remained in effect until the day after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, when France activated the second level, 'reinforced.' At this level, President Chirac exercised his authority to direct the armed forces to deploy internally to ensure security. He put an additional 5400 police, gendarmes, and soldiers on the streets of Paris at strategic points; four thousand police were initially assigned to the Paris subway system alone." (Carl et al., 2006)

The diagram below is something that both the U.S. And France use to evaluate and categorize all threats and attacks that occur within their region (Boyer, 2006). The diagram itself is pretty self-explanatory with the severity of a potential terrorist threat being the highest and top priority and the lack of severity of a potential terrorist threat being the lowest priority. It is important to note here that both countries rate the overall nature of the threat differently in different circumstances hence there is no clear pattern as to which particular aspects are necessary to checklist to make the potential of a threat or attack a severe or low one (Council of Europe, 2004).

In the U.S.A., the overall structure and organization has been re-evaluated and redesigned in order to tackle the new and emerging threats like the ones that they encountered in the September 11 attacks. Even though this seems like a daunting and risky task to implement in the economic condition that exist today, the U.S. government and official strongly believe that this is the way to proceed further with a more efficient and stronger homeland security and birder security structure. Hence, the structure for the homeland security that exist within the U.S. today looks like the flow chart below, that displays the departments involved as well as their designated responsibilities (Transatlantic Homeland Security, 2006):

The process that the United States uses for an efficient setup of homeland security is based around the single-minded 'domestic incident management'. As the name suggests it is a measure to ensure that all internal threats and attacks, natural and man-made, are prevented and managed in a timely and efficient manner. The main aim of using such an approach is to make sure that all the sections of the government administrative bodies throughout the 51 states work cohesively and effectively towards a common goal. Furthermore, the areas of crisis management and consequence management will be dealt with as a single entity and both will be solved using thorough and efficient solution designs pertinent to the situation circumstances. The diagram below shows a very general design of how the U.S. government aims to keep all the governments sections connected and in association with each other towards a common goal (U.S. Department of State, 2002):

The diagram shows the general overview of the departments involved in the homeland security responsibilities within the U.S. And what particular responsibilities and tasks they each handle from a micro to a macro level. It is important to note here that all the departments are either connected directly to the president or the governor while in the French setup. The governor was never in the picture and the tasks of the governors were mainly fulfilled by perfect who was either a government or a public official.

The Secretary of Homeland Security controls the domestic incident management structure and he can use the government assets for responding to crises in one or more of the following conditions

(1) A Federal department has requested the intervention of the Secretary;

(2) The State and local authorities have requested the intervention of the Secretary due to the exhaustion of their assets;

(3) The responsive unit to the incident incorporates more then one Federal department; or (4) The Secretary personally assumes accountability for the incident from the President (U.S. Department of State, 2002).

US and France: Suspected Terrorist threats to Homeland Security

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) also known as the Arab Revolutionary Council; Arab Revolutionary Brigades; Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims

2. Armed Islamic Group (GIA) also known as the Al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallah or Groupement Islamique Arme

3. Action Directe (AD) that is France and was originally formed as the anti-NATO organization in the region.

4. Armed Islamic Group originally formed to defeat the secular Algerian government and bring in power a proper Islamic government and state structure in the region.

5. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) also known as the Askatasuna; Batasuna; Euskal Herri Batasuna.

6. First of October Antifascist Resistance Group (GRAPO) (Grupo de Resistencia Anti-Fascista Premero de Octubre). This was the section or group made up of the illegal Communist Party of Spain from the Franco Time that aimed to defeat and de-throne the Spanish government in order to bring in power a stringent Marxist-Leninist regime. The group of GRAPO is passionately anti-Us and still worked for the dismissal of all U.S. military with Spain.

7. Aum Shinrikyo also known as the A.I.C. Comprehensive Research Institute; Aleph; Aum Supreme Truth

8. Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA) also known as the Communist Party of the Philippines; New People's Army

9. Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) also known as the Continuity Army Council; Republican Sinn Fein

10. Organisation de l'Armee Secrete (OAS) (Secret Army Organization) the is a French right-wing terrorist association that was initially created in order to stand against the independence of the French colony of Algeria and was created by the French "stay behinds" who were basically ex-army men from the French Army and included members from the Foreign Legion formed in the Indochina War.

11. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) also known as the Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya; Izz al-Din al Qassam Battalions; Students of Ayyash.

12. Hizballah also known as the Party of God; Islamic Jihad; Islamic Jihad Organization; Revolutionary Justice Organization; Organization of the Oppressed on Earth; Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine; Organization of Right Against Wrong.

13. Kahane Chai (Kach) also known as the Committee for the Safety of the Roads; American Friends of the United Yeshiva; Dikuy Bogdim; DOV; Judea Police; Forefront of the Idea; Friends of the Jewish Idea Yeshiva; Jewish Legion; Judean Congress; Kach; Kahane; Kahane Lives; Kahanetzadak.com; American Friends of Yeshivat Rav Meir; Meir's Youth; New Kach Movement; Newkach.org; No'ar Meir; Repression of Traitors; State of Judea; Sword of David

14. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) also known as the Ellalan Force or Tamil Tigers

15. Al Qa'ida also known as the al Qaeda; International Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders; Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Sites; Islamic Salvation Foundation; The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites; The Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places; The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders; Usama bin Ladin Network / Organization; the Jihad Group.