It's bad enough when politicians undermine free trade with their
protectionist inclinations. But now they're endangering national
security. And terrorists -- who, ironically, are embracing
globalization -- stand to benefit.
Ever since 9/11, terrorists have used jet travel and Internet
communications to stitch together a worldwide Murder, Inc. Take the
arrest of Abu Hamza al-Masri, a radical cleric in London, and his
pending extradition to the United States. The case involves more
nationalities than a spaghetti Western, linking Hamza to a
murderous Yemini kidnapping, based on evidence collected in
Afghanistan, pointing toward a planned terror camp in Oregon.
A conspiracy that can range from the Khyber Pass to the Willamette
Valley no longer should come as a surprise. What is a surprise is a
parallel story in which U.S. efforts to rapidly erect a defense
against these kinds of bad guys are running into petty politics and
a protectionist smear campaign.
The story involves the Department of Homeland Security's United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT), an automated system meant to expedite legitimate
travelers while singling out those who intend to do us harm. When
completed, it will record visitors through the use of fingerprint
scanners and digital photos and will integrate existing databases
to push good information across agencies. In this way, it will pick
out people who are security risks, while cutting costs and adhering
to U.S. privacy laws and policies.
Three high-profile corporate teams bid for the contract. The
winning bid went to the Smart Border Alliance, a team led by a
company known as Accenture.
But the critics and sore losers aren't giving up. They're attacking
Accenture in a desperate bid to force DHS to rescind the contract
and give it to one of the losing teams.
Opponents claim Accenture should be disqualified for supposedly
being a foreign company. Not just a foreign company, but one that
avoids U.S. taxes and is likely to outsource work to foreign and
insecure locales! But as the following facts demonstrate, we're in
danger of letting loose charges and mindless protectionism
undermine our security.
Accenture is a global organization with 90,000 people working in 48
countries. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract was
awarded to Accenture LLP, an Illinois company employing more than
25,000 Americans. Political opponents are trying to make something
out of the fact that the parent company, Accenture Ltd., is
headquartered in Bermuda. Critics imply that this means the company
is evading taxes and suffering security lapses.
This is nonsense. All the money Accenture earns from this contract
will be subject to U.S. taxes. All the work will be performed in
the U.S. under the security rules and strict purview of the DHS.
The Bermuda discussion is a red herring. The 29 U.S.-based
companies in the Smart Border Alliance will perform the work for
DHS, and the IRS will tax all profits these companies make.
Nonetheless, some politicians want to link the DHS contract to the
political issue of "corporate inversion" (when U.S. companies
choose to re-charter in jurisdictions with better tax law). Even
here, the politicians have it wrong. Accenture didn't leave the
U.S., because it was never chartered in the U.S. Originally a
worldwide partnership, Accenture chose Bermuda when it incorporated
because that location was appropriately "neutral" between the
heavyweight markets of Europe and North America.
What does this have to do with choosing the best team to improve
American border security? Nothing.
If a U.S. company with a parent based in Bermuda is a threat, then
should we get the vapors over Rolls Royce, whose biggest customer
is the U.S. Air Force? Are we to worry that the Queen's Regiments
are secretly undermining the C-130 Hercules or Joint Strike
Fighter? What about the Netherlands-based KPMG, which does work
with the Pentagon?
Of course, it makes sense to take note of a contractor's location
and allegiances. In our rush to protect America, however, we
shouldn't allow xenophobia to lead us to spend more than necessary
or pick the second-best or third-best alternatives to make our
borders secure, merely because the first-pick winner has roots
overseas, in a British possession.
If our borders are to be our last -- not our first -- line of
defense, we'll need nothing short of the best team available in
order to surmount this daunting technological challenge. We
shouldn't let terrorists be better at globalization than U.S.
business and government.
Daniel J. Mitchell is the McKenna fellow in political economy at The Heritage Foundation.
Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire