The term "homeland security" is misleading. Virtu­ally no homeland security program can be imple­mented effectively without the support and cooperation of America's friends and allies around the world. On the other hand, security is not about "push­ing our borders out," making other nations bear the burden of protecting U.S. citizens. Homeland security is really a cooperative effort that enables nations to serve their mutual interests and protect their citi­zens-as well as the global economic lifelines that carry the free flow of goods, services, peoples, and ideas-against the threat of transnational terrorism.

Strengthening the international instruments that help to achieve this goal has to be a U.S. priority. One important tool is the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which can be used to enhance security, protect indi­vidual liberties, advance civil society, promote eco­nomic growth, and build geostrategic partnerships. The United States should work with other states to improve this program and expand it to include increasingly important strategic nations, such as India, South Korea, and the new democracies in East­ern Europe.

The Visa Waiver Program

Under the Visa Waiver Program,[1] citizens from cer­tain countries are permitted to enter the United States for tourism or business (but not for employment or formal study) for up to 90 days without a visa. Although these travelers are inspected at U.S. points of entry, they do not undergo the more rig­orous background investigations and in-country interviews associated with regular visa applica­tions.

Twenty-seven countries currently participate in the VWP: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ice­land, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxem­bourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slove­nia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

To participate in the VWP, a country must at least:

1. Offer reciprocal visa-free travel to U.S. citizens,
2. Issue machine-readable passports, and
3. Meet the requirement that the refusal rate for its nationals who apply for nonimmigrant U.S. visas must be less than 3 percent.

The VWP is intended primarily to facilitate entry for foreign visitors who are likely to return to their home country within the 90-day limit.

Both the Department of State and the Depart­ment of Homeland Security (DHS) play roles in implementing the VWP. The State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs evaluates visa applica­tions and issues visas to foreign nationals seeking to visit the United States. Under Section 402 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,[2] the Secretary of Homeland Security establishes and administers the rules for granting visas to non-U.S. citizens.

In addition to setting overall visa policy, DHS agencies play a significant enforcement role. Cus­toms and Border Protection (CBP) monitors com­pliance at the border. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau approves immigra­tion petitions, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are responsible for finding and removing violators of U.S. immigration laws.

The VWP has reasonable limits. Entrants cannot petition to extend their stays in the United States except in cases of emergency. They also cannot nor­mally change to another nonimmigrant or immi­grant status. Finally, except in asylum cases, VWP applicants must waive in writing any right to review or appeal of a CBP officer's determination about their admissibility or deportation. Some trav­elers from VWP countries are ineligible to partici­pate in the program. These include anyone who has been arrested, has a criminal record, has a serious communicable disease, has previously been denied admission, has been deported, or has overstayed the 90-day limit on a previous visit.

In consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the power to add or remove countries from the VWP. In fact, countries have been removed from the VWP. In Feb­ruary 2002, the Attorney General ended Argentina's participation after an economic crisis in that coun­try led to a sharp rise in the number of Argentine nationals seeking to stay longer than 90 days in the United States. In April 2003, Uruguay lost its eligi­bility because of the high percentage of Uruguayan nationals who either sought to overstay their visas or were denied entry into the United States.

As mandated by legislation, the DHS and State Department conduct joint reviews of existing VWP countries every two years. These reviews resemble the process used to decide whether to include a country in the VWP in the first place. In both cases, interagency assessment teams visit the relevant country for several weeks to collect information on a range of issues including lost and stolen pass­ports, the naturalization process, and law enforce­ment policies.

The Program's Importance

Congress created the Visa Waiver Pilot Program after the number of foreign tourists needing visas began to overwhelm U.S. embassies and consu­lates in the mid-1980s. American officials deter­mined that relaxing visa rules was more cost-effective than expanding consular staffs when deal­ing with countries that met certain standards regarding border security, financial stability, and probability of return.

In addition to saving resources, the other bene­fits of the VWP include allowing U.S. government representatives to focus their attention on higher-risk applicants. In practice, because making it eas­ier to travel between the United States and other countries facilitates short-term business travel and tourism, the Visa Waiver Program has also proven an engine for economic growth and public diplo­macy. For example, over 12.7 million visitors from VWP countries entered the United States in 2004.[3] Of these, approximately 4 million came from Brit­ain.[4] In 2003, 13.5 million foreigners, or approxi­mately 49 percent of the total entrants for that year, entered the United States under the VWP.[5] A 2002 General Accounting Office report concluded that abolishing the VWP would likely impose major economic and diplomatic costs on the United States.[6]

Finally, the VWP is important because it helps to build security partnerships. By agreeing to com­mon standards and policies, participating countries help to limit illegal entry and unlawful presence in their countries, hindering travel by terrorists and transnational criminals.

Strengthening the Program

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has tightened controls over the VWP. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001[7] requires nationals from VWP countries to use a machine-readable passport to enter the United States with­out a visa. Machine-readable passports have one or two lines of letters, numbers, and hatch marks at the bottom of the passport photo page that can be read by optical scanners. DHS regulations also established that each VWP applicant, including children, must present an individual document, thereby preventing family members from continu­ing to apply for admission under one passport.

The original deadline for implementing new standards was October 1, 2003, but technical problems led the Administration to use the con­gressionally authorized waiver to extend the dead­line for almost all VWP countries to October 26, 2004.[8] Most VWP governments had been issuing such passports only during the past few years, so many of their citizens still owned valid old-style passports.

To further smooth implementation of the new rules, the DHS decided to allow CBP officers to make a one-time exception to this requirement. After October 16, 2004, travelers arriving in the United States from VWP countries without a visa and without a machine-readable passport were allowed to enter for up to 90 days, but CBP officers annotated their passport and gave them a letter stating that they must obtain a new passport or visa for any future travel to the United States.

Under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002,[9] Congress required all VWP participants to use biometric passports by October 26, 2004. Passports containing biometric data have embedded electronic chips that contain a computerized record of the owner's observable bio­logical features that can be used to identify that individual. These can include fingerprints, iris/ret­ina patterns, and as many as 1,800 facial character­istics.[10] Whereas a machine-readable passport merely allows agents to verify a traveler's name, documents containing biometric data allow verifi­cation of a person's identity.

The United States and other countries are adher­ing to the international technical standards for bio­metric data established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency. The technical standards address a number of complex issues, including interoperability of machine-readable passports and passport readers and protection from unauthorized use of biometric data. In May 2003, the ICAO selected facial recog­nition as the required globally interoperable bio­metric. One advantage of using biometric data over name-based watch lists is that it avoids the prob­lems that arise when an innocent person's name resembles that of someone on a watch list.[11]

The European Union (EU) initially asked for a two-year extension of the October 26, 2004, dead­line to allow VWP countries time to develop and introduce the new technology. The Administration supported the request, but Congress agreed to extend the deadline by only one year, to October 26, 2005.[12] Foreign governments are proceeding to develop and implement plans to issue biometric passports and other travel documents to accord with U.S. and ICAO requirements.[13] Nevertheless, foreign and U.S. officials acknowledge that it is unlikely that Britain, France, Japan, and many other VWP countries will be able to meet even this extended deadline.[14]

As October 2005 approaches, pressures on Con­gress to postpone the deadline again are certain to increase. While there is some frustration over the pace of implementing the new passports, it is more important to get the program right than to get it done fast. A quickly implemented program that lacks interoperability, cannot perform as expected, or incurs excessive costs will not help to increase security.

Since biometric passports are not in place except for diplomats, children under 14, and pas­sengers older than 79, VWP travelers became sub­ject to the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) processing on September 30, 2004. Under this program, CBP officers make inkless digital scans of two fingers and digitally photograph the face of each visa holder at the U.S. point of entry to verify that the person entering the United States is the same indi­vidual who was issued a U.S. visa or holds a valid passport from their home country.[15] The biomet­ric and biographic data are also checked against the FBI criminal database and terrorist watch lists, including IDENT, the DHS automated biometric identification system.[16] US-VISIT technology allows agents to scan travelers' information elec­tronically from visitors' travel documents, saving time and increasing accuracy. US-VISIT will serve as a stopgap measure until the new VWP passport standards are fully implemented.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the problem of stolen and lost passports from VWP countries. As security at points of entry improves, terrorists and transnational criminals are increas­ingly using illicitly obtained passports from VWP countries to bypass the visa issuance process.[17] According to an investigation by the DHS Inspector General:

[T]he lost and stolen passport problem is the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program. Our country is vulnerable because gaps in our treatment of lost and stolen passports remain.[18]

Stolen passports from VWP countries are espe­cially valued on the black market because they facilitate entry into the United States.[19] Today, passports that are stolen or obtained in some other illicit manner are being used to enter the United States. If the program's credibility is to be main­tained, enhancing cooperation among VWP coun­tries to address this issue must be a priority. The alternative-canceling the VWP-makes little sense. Ending visa waivers might require process­ing up to 14 million more visa applications every year at a cost of up to an additional $810 million annually.[20] U.S. counterterrorism resources can be put to more efficient and effective uses.

As Robert Leiken has written, the solution has to be "mend, don't end, visa waivers."[21] When all of its post-9/11 improvements are in place and com­bined with more vigilant oversight, the Visa Waiver Program will significantly enhance secu­rity, trade, and travel. While it is not the solution to all of the challenges posed by terrorism, it is a valu­able layer in a security system designed to stop ter­rorists, promote economic growth, and respect individual liberties.

Future Strategic Challenges

International cooperation is vital to U.S. eco­nomic and security priorities, and it is the center­piece of American foreign policy and strategy. As President George W. Bush declared in his 2005 State of the Union Address, "our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and indepen­dent nations."[22] The VWP has a proven record not only of facilitating travel, but also of strengthening U.S. strategic partnerships with countries around the world.

That said, many nations that have become increasingly important friends and allies of the United States deeply resent that they have been excluded from the VWP and that the United States has not established unambiguous standards and a clear certification road map for achieving VWP status.

Poland is a case in point. Poland has been one of the staunchest backers of American foreign policies for the past decade. For example, Polish officials supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq and deployed some 2,500 troops to Iraq, despite criticism from other EU governments.

In addition, nearly 9 million Americans of Pol­ish ancestry currently reside in the United States.[23] Leaders of this community decry Poland's exclusion from the VWP for impeding visits by family members from Poland and treating their pro-American country as a second-class nation compared with other, less supportive Euro­pean states.[24] During a visit to Washington in August, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski raised the visa issue with President Bush and other U.S. officials.[25]

The United States has not responded adequately to these concerns, principally because Poland and other new Eastern European democracies like the Czech Republic have exorbitant visa rejection rates.[26] In some cases, the United States has tried to ameliorate the issue by providing additional visa issuance support.[27]

On the other side of the world, South Korea has also been left out in the cold. The Republic of Korea (ROK) is one of the most important U.S. allies in East Asia. The two countries have adhered to a mutual defense treaty since October 1953. The ROK government has deployed over 3,000 troops to Iraq, making it the third largest contributor to the U.S.-led military coalition there.

People-to-people connections are especially important in the case of South Korea and the United States. The U.S. Embassy in Seoul, which has the largest single U.S. nonimmigrant visa pro­cessing post in the world, issues an average of 1,800 to 1,900 visas per day.[28] In 2003, about 420,000 South Koreans applied for U.S. nonimmi­grant visas; 397,000 of these applications were approved, for a rejection rate of around 5 percent. Some 680,000 Koreans traveled to the United States in 2003, and more than 400,000 American citizens visited the ROK.[29]

Regrettably, U.S. visa policies are antagonizing South Koreans and contributing to the growth of anti-Americanism.[30] South Korean business repre­sentatives have expressed concern that the more rigorous U.S. visa policies adopted since the Sep­tember 2001 terrorist attacks have impeded com­merce between the two countries. ROK travel agencies reported a steep decline in travel to the United States after the American government changed its entry visa requirements for South Kore­ans on August 2, 2004. Previously, the U.S. embassy exempted individuals between the ages of 55 and 80 from appearing for a nonimmigrant visa interview, resulting in only about 65 percent of applicants being interviewed. Under the new rules, less than 5 percent of South Korean applicants (pri­marily diplomatic or official passport holders and their dependents, children younger than 14, and adults older than 79) are exempt from the visa pro­cess, which requires applicants to be digitally fin­gerprinted and to appear in person for an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul.[31]

India, the world's largest democracy and an emerging economic engine in Asia, is another important Asian country left outside the VWP security wire. Indian information technology com­panies have already become an important source of outsourcing services for the United States, and the United States and India share many strategic interests.[32]

As with the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, India and South Korea have been unable to meet the criteria established by the VWP. For example, in the case of South Korea, U.S. Ambas­sador Christopher R. Hill and other American government representatives have said that the ROK cannot join the VWP until the number of illegal South Korean residents in the United States significantly declines.[33] Additionally South Korea's visa rejection rate is higher than the 3 per­cent maximum.[34] Finally, ROK officials estimate that some 70,000 South Korean passports are lost or stolen each year and then traded on the black market, a factor that has impeded Seoul's partici­pation in the VWP.[35]

While these obstacles cannot be ignored, they should not be allowed to become insurmountable roadblocks. Rather than being seen as impediments to cooperation, visa policies should become cata­lysts for strengthening U.S. relations with emerging friends and allies.

The best solution is for developing countries to undertake fundamental reforms in governance and economic policy to strengthen their economies and civil society. These reforms will significantly reduce their visa rejection rates because U.S. officials will be more confident that visitors will not illegally overstay their visits in an attempt to live and work in the United States unlawfully.

A case in point is India. According to the Finan­cial Times, direct foreign investment in India is "anemic"-$4 billion compared to $50 billion for China.[36] The lack of foreign investment has ham­strung India's efforts to expand and update its infra­structure, the sort of modernization that is critical to spurring further economic expansion.

In large part, the lack of investment reflects the absence of reform in the Indian economy. Accord­ing to the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom, "the government continues to restrict 700 sectors to small-scale industries, preventing larger companies from taking advantage of economies of scale."[37] Trade barriers and excessive regulation discourage overseas private investment. Additionally, artificial barriers that keep U.S. goods and servvices out of Indian markets have slowed the growth of robust U.S.-Indian partnerships.

India should reduce government regulation and liberalize its protectionist trade policies to encour­age more foreign investments. A wave of bold reforms on the part of India would do much to strengthen U.S.-Indian economic ties and, in turn, increase India's capacity to meet VWP criteria.

However, while implementation of economic and governance reform might be part of the VWP certification road map, strategic and security needs suggest that the U.S. should not wait for the full effect of these initiatives before making progress on the visa front. In fact, implementation of the VWP may serve as a catalyst for progress on trade and governance issues.

Building Freedom's Alliance

Members of Congress have been hesitant to change the law to expand VWP participation. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, no new country has become eligible for the VWP. This freeze is understandable given the threats of glo­bal terrorism and the adverse economic and social impact of individuals living and working in the United States unlawfully. Nevertheless, the imper­ative to expand the network of free nations that share security and economic concerns argues that the United States must work to enlarge the VWP, not by reducing requirements to "lower the bar," but by working with countries to help them meet the VWP criteria.

A good start would be to consolidate control of visa issuance and monitoring and management of the VWP in a single federal agency, much as the Department of Defense was tasked with leading the effort to prepare states for NATO membership. A joint report by The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies determined that splitting responsibilities between the two departments detracted from rather than enhanced the efficiency of operations.[38] Since the DHS already has most of the responsibility in these areas, it is the logical place to consolidate responsi­bility for all visa programs, and Congress should create an Undersecretary for Policy and an Assis­tant Secretary for International Affairs to oversee these programs.[39]

That done, the United States should work with selected partner nations to establish a certification road map for each country, including a timeline, that will lead to VWP status, much as the Partner­ship for Peace program was used to prepare some countries for NATO candidacy.

Specifically, Congress should:

• Reorganize the DHS by transferring all responsibilities for visa issuance, management, and policy to the department and creating an Undersecretary for Policy and Assistant Secre­tary for International Affairs to oversee these responsibilities, and
• Require the Administration to establish a VWP certification road map for selected part­ner nations with a goal of achieving full certifi­cation within five to 10 years.

For its part, the Administration should:

• Establish an interagency team under DHS leadership to negotiate and implement the road map to VWP certification in coordination with partner countries,
• Work with partner countries to establish mutually agreed upon standards to measure progress toward the VWP criteria, and
• Provide technical assistance funds and exper­tise to help developing countries comply with visa security requirements.

Conclusion

Ultimately, helping these countries to help them­selves will help the United States. Every country that joins global security regimes like the Visa Waiver Program shrinks the number of sanctuaries and opportunities available to terrorists plying the global networks of trade and travel. In addition, expanding global security will promote free trade and the free exchange of people and ideas, both of which strengthen civil societies and make nations more secure.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Rich­ard Weitz, Ph.D., is Associate Director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at The Hudson Institute.