When I began my career, we faced a very different threat environment. We knew who the ‘bad guys’ were, and where to find them. Power was largely divided between two main blocs, who, like two sumo wrestlers, did a lot of grunting and posturing but, thankfully, little actual fighting.
Today, the threat environment is much more fluid and unpredictable. Power is more diffuse and adversaries less easily identified. The bipolar power structure has given way to a virtual network of terrorists – people who use networks of communications that we cannot easily monitor, track or pin down. As a result, we need to think and act very differently. But one thing is constant: the need for good intelligence.
Over the course of my career as both a creator and client of intelligence material, I’ve learned several valuable lessons: the importance of intelligence being user friendly, timely and client focused, the importance of technology, of challenging conventional thinking, of ensuring that intelligence adds real value, and of leveraging our strengths in the intelligence community to ensure relevance. Those lessons are still relevant, but I would like to use this opportunity to build on them by outlining five key challenges that face both the intelligence community and society as a whole.
1. Avoiding group think
Today’s threat environment is very different from that which prevailed from the end of the Second World War through the end of the Cold War. Technology has collapsed distances, allowed unprecedented coordination around the world and fundamentally altered the security and intelligence landscape. As a result, the greatest danger today is not the tyrant, wielding the tools of state, but the terrorist, wielding the tools of technology. Osama bin Laden, to use an obvious example, holds no office and commands no formal army, but his network extends around the globe and threatens society.
We need creativity in our approach to security and intelligence issues. There is always a risk of ‘group-think’ in any community and at any time. But in this community, at this time, group think is a luxury we simply cannot afford.
When the CIA is evaluating information and developing response scenarios, it creates what it calls ‘red teams’ to develop counter arguments and present different interpretations. Should we adopt a similar approach to our intelligence gathering?
I raise the question not to make a case one way or the other, but rather to stress that we need fresh insights, new ideas and a willingness to not only think outside the box, but to recognize that the whole idea of neat little boxes is passé; that modern-day interconnectedness calls for new ways of approaching and interpreting intelligence material. That does not mean we should neglect the ways of the past, but we can’t assume that because something has always been done that way, we must do it that way.
2. Reaching out to Canada’s communities
In a democracy, police and security organizations can do their jobs properly only if they have the support of citizens. Otherwise, we run the risk that some communities will close ranks and stop communicating with government. We are addressing this issue in Canada through the creation of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable and other outreach efforts.
The Roundtable is a forum where people from a cross-section of the Canadian mosaic can share experiences and concerns with those of us who help develop security policy. I was sceptical at first about what such an initiative could accomplish. But after spending time with its very impressive array of members, and having seen its initial discussions and activities, I now see it as a valuable forum – one that helps government to carry out its responsibilities in a way that both aids our society and honours our diversity.
The London bombings offer a compelling demonstration of the importance of outreach and understanding. The primary agents of those attacks grew up in Britain and the extremism they espouse was known in local neighbourhoods. We must understand second and third generation youth of all backgrounds, the influences on their belief systems and how best to engage these communities on an ongoing basis, and we must try to understand what causes them to become disengaged with society.
The engagement fostered by the Roundtable and other outreach initiatives can help to address this by building trust with citizens, helping us to refine and improve legislation and reminding us in government of the impact this legislation can have on the lives and attitudes of those who come from communities most affected by it.
We should also be more actively recruiting from our ethno-cultural communities. It’s not enough for our security agencies to meet government-style public service targets; we should do more to promote diversity in our ranks. It matters when you’re at the table from the very beginning. I applaud our security agencies for having surpassed many of the rest of us in government in this regard, but there’s still room for improvement.
3. Balancing privacy and security
Striking the right balance between privacy and security may well prove to be one of the most important challenges facing us at the beginning of the 21st century. And while the answers are by no means certain, what is certain is that how we answer those questions will go a long way to defining the kind of society we have 10 to 20 years from now.
The government has tried to reconcile individual rights and collective security in both its drafting and review of the Anti-Terrorist Act – and I believe we have struck the right balance. In developing our security related policies we are involving the federal government’s Privacy Commissioner – not just as an afterthought, but as a key consultative step in the policy process.
Canadians’ views on this issue are interesting. According to a recent Ekos poll, 58% of respondents felt the government should emphasize security, while just over a third felt our focus should be to guarantee civil liberties.
In the face of terror’s reach and fierce expression, Canadians understand the need for greater vigilance and perhaps, even some diminished freedom in limited areas. But we must also resist the temptation to become a surveillance society, where privacy is sacrificed and basic rights forgotten. The question, of course, is where to draw the line. Will people, for example, be willing to accept surveillance cameras in subway stations as a deterrent to crime or a potential terrorist attack? Maybe. Are they likely to accept surveillance cameras in their offices or on their street corners? Probably not.
The debate about surveillance cameras is a good example of how the test of reasonableness and effectiveness can be brought to bear in the decision-making process. Canadians are willing to accept reasonable intrusion on their privacy, provided it is commensurate with the risk and balanced by the proper safeguards. The bottom line is that Canadians, quite rightly, don’t want security or privacy – they want both. Our challenge is to develop a consensus on how those twin goals are to be achieved.
4. Being prepared
In Canada, ours has not been a culture in which vigilance has historically been required. Few people brought up in this country have lived intimately with danger, as have citizens in other countries. With the attacks of September 11 and the subsequent naming of Canada as a target by Osama bin Laden, we have had to face a new reality. Indeed, with the bombings in London, Canada now stands as the only target named by bin Laden not to have suffered a terrorist attack. It is important for Canadians to understand this, not to generate fear but to encourage vigilance.
Today, there can be no unengaged citizens. This is a different mindset, and one that will have enormous repercussions on the security and intelligence community. For government, that means we need to do a better job of describing the threats we face. Canadians appreciate the threat of floods, forest fires and blackouts because they’ve experienced them. Appreciating the terrorist threat, however, requires a leap of faith – particularly when government can’t provide specific details. We need to be more transparent, to paint a clearer picture without jeopardizing operational security.
5. Managing Canada—US relations
Since September 11, we have understandably and appropriately worked closely with our American colleagues on issues of mutual concern such as border security. Our two countries need to continue to work closely and learn from one another; and this cooperation must be strengthened on many fronts and many levels.
But we also need to be aware that we have our own interests, traditions and values that need to be articulated and advanced – that we need a made-in-Canada approach. That’s what we did in developing the department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and in drafting the Anti-Terrorist Act. And it is what we must continue to do in developing intelligence and security responses to the new threats before us.
Do we have everything right? Not yet. But neither does the US or the UK. It is important for us to make linkages at all levels and to share our experiences. We must all work to foster links in the US with both officials and academics to understand what is working for them, where we can add value, and what they can learn from us.
Conclusion
Canada is going to need skilled professionals to deal with these issues – people who can lead the security community and who can work both inside and outside government; people who can manage issues in a way that will attract the attention and commitment of our political leaders – especially those who have traditionally not considered security as part of their mandate.
Those of us inside government need to consider how to mange people better. For example, should we rotate them through other departments to broaden their perspective and spread their expertise? Perhaps we should look at sending them into universities to deepen their understanding and share their experiences with academics. The department I serve is still relatively new and we have a unique opportunity to start with a clean slate, bring in new people and try different approaches.
History tells us that Leonardo da Vinci was not only an artist, sculptor, architect and a scientist, but also a military engineer. He pursued this occupation, he wrote, “in order to preserve the chief gift of nature, which is liberty.” Da Vinci understood – as we do today – that liberty is the foundation upon which all other fields of human knowledge and creativity rest; but it must first be secured before the others can be pursued.
Margaret Bloodworth is Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Over a 25-year career, she has served as Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and DM of Transport and National Defence. Last fall, she delivered the John Tait Memorial Lecture at the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies, from which this article was adapted.
