WASHINGTON¡ªDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff said the mandate set by Congress to scan the contents of U.S.-bound cargo containers will not be met, according to various media reports.
The impetus for cargo scanning was laid forth when President George W. Bush signed into law ¡°H.R. 1 Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 in August 2007. The bill calls for the 100-percent scanning of maritime cargo¡ªbefore it¡¯s loaded onto vessels heading for the United States¡ªto be required by 2012. The bill also calls for specific annual benchmarks on the percentage of maritime cargo containers headed for the U.S., an analysis of how to best incorporate existing maritime security initiatives, including the Container Security Initiative and C-TPAT, and an analysis of the scanning equipment, personnel, and technology needed to reach the 100-percent container scanning objective.
While it appears the 2012 deadline for cargo container scanning will not be met, a USA Today report indicated that the DHS ¡°plans to gather more information about who made the goods in the containers and who packed them.¡± The report added that under this proposal a small percentage of the 11 million containers annually shipped to the U.S., including containers from unknown companies and those known to harbor terrorists, would be flagged to be scanned for nuclear or radioactive materials.
DHS Secretary Chertoff described this approach as ¡°Risk Management 101,¡± and in the USA Today report he cited various obstacles surrounding the 100-percent scanning mandate, including: how some countries do not want U.S. Customs officers operating scanning equipment in their ports, the potential of scanning bogging down global trade activity, and the financial ramifications of the program.
An industry analyst told LM that given the aggressive time frame and the scope of 100-percent container scanning, the DHS announcement does not come as a huge surprise.
¡°The way container scanning was supposed to be done overseas¡ªbefore containers were loaded onto a ship¡ªdoes not pertain to just the last port of call but to every port the container may touch,¡± said Albert Saphir, president of international trade consultants ABS Consulting in Marietta, Ga. ¡°This means that hundreds of ports would need to ne equipped with scanning equipment, leading to the questions of who is going to pay for it and view the data.¡±
While the initial intent of Congress regarding container scanning was not bad, Saphir said it may have been somewhat misguided by equipment manufacturers who stand to receive a tremendous windfall in terms of orders and revenue.
And when looking at security issues like this, he said the public would be mislead to believe 100-percent scanning equates to 100-percent security.
¡°That is where the two aspects come together and the realistic approach is that there will never be 100-percent security, so the question is why spend all this money on equipment, managing the data and day-to-day operations and think it will be 100-percent [effective],¡± said Saphir.
A major argument against the notion of container screening is that such measures would be impossible to implement without disrupting domestic and global economy operations. But that sentiment has not stopped people from speaking out in favor of container scanning.
An example of this when prior to H.R. 1 was signed into law, U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson said H.R. 1 would enable U.S.-bound cargo to be scanned in a commerce-friendly manner.
And a September report released by the Majority Staffs of the Committees on Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs blasted the progress made on 100-percent container scanning. It noted that rather than focus on scanning, DHS said in June that it is placing an emphasis on high-risk trade corridors rather than dedicating resources to protect all maritime cargo containers. Even with the DHS opting to focus on high-risk trade corridors, the report indicated that Congress has asked DHS for a definition of a high risk trade corridor, but has yet to receive an answer.
The report also stated that today 95 percent of all imports are transported in shipping containers that move through international waters, with less than five percent of these containers scanned to see if a terrorist threat is present.
But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to the House that H.R. 1 ¡°would have a crippling effect on global trade without significantly improving security.¡±
In an August 2007 interview with LM, Kelby Woodard, president of Trade Innovations, a supply chain security and customs consultancy, said that H.R. will not secure the U.S. in the most logical and effective way possible, adding that the 100-percent scanning requirement is essentially a ¡°feel good¡± measure.
At the end of the day, said Woodard, Congress will have only ¡°served to have added complexity to global trade, overloaded CBP with useless information, strained the port infrastructures of the world, damaged our international credibility, created a security policy that is weakened by inflexibility ...and made themselves feel a whole lot better in the process.¡±
And he points out that the potential implications of this bill on global trade are enormous, citing how, the export community should ¡°brace themselves for retaliatory actions on the part of other countries that may enact similar regulations regarding containers leaving the U.S.
