Resolution 2341 (2017) is an important document issued by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and presenting some of its major objectives. In particular, it describes the main principles of critical infrastructure security and its protection from terrorist attacks. According to Resolution 2341 (2017), each member state is responsible for identifying what can be considered their critical infrastructures and what are the most effective ways to protect them. UNSC includes five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The other ten members are temporary and are elected for two years by the General Assembly (Current Members, n.d.). The Security Council emphasizes that their collaborative actions are needed to guarantee the overall safety and eliminate risks of terrorist attacks.
The recent events allow analyzing the actions of UNCS and how they correspond to its mission and principles. One of them is connected with the nuclear program of Iran and the UNSC response. It is believed that the nuclear development of this country, which significantly increased during the Cold War, is a major threat to the security of the United States. Therefore, the growing nuclear arsenal and military technologies of Iran triggered tensions in the American security bodies, including UNCS.
In response to this threat, UNCS imposed sanctions on the Iranian military and economic systems. They included Resolution 1737, implying bans on the trade of nuclear technology (Sahakyan, 2017). It is fair to say that UNCS demonstrated a wise and timely reaction to the actions of Iran. Even after the claims of Iran’s officials about the peacefulness of nuclear development, UNCS posed arms embargo and financial restrictions (Sahakyan, 2017). The U.S. became the main initiator of these decisions since the security of this country was at risk in the first place. By restricting arms supply, the organization weakened Iran’s military positions. Moreover, it influenced the financial side of the issue, since nuclear development heavily depends on monetary investments. The oil embargo became the most effective measure; it caused Iran to sign an agreement, under which the country changed its nuclear policy (Sahakyan, 2017). Therefore, the actions of UNCS were logical and integrated, which allowed preventing possible nuclear conflicts threatening the overall security.
Container Security Initiative and its Principles
Homeland Security is closely connected with the ways of transferring goods and information. Container Security Initiative (CSI) is one of the ways to ensure U.S. security in terms of trade and cargo shipping. CSI can be described as “a system under which a foreign port that is a member of this initiative agrees to scrutinize cargo containers destined for its own ports” (Singla, 2019, para. 3). The initial goal of CSI is to prevent any risk of terror spread through cargo transfer through the security check of all containers leaving for American ports.
There are certain shipping-related cases that threaten the security of the U.S. Given the territorial closeness of Mexico, it can be suggested that drug trafficking is one of the major risks to consider. Moreover, as Prodan (2017) emphasizes, explosives, such as chemical-biological agents, may threaten the lives of citizens and lead to serious financial loss. Radiation is also considered an important problem, as it leads to significant environmental damage, which is also a part of U.S. security. Finally, special attention should be paid to the transportation of hazardous substances such as fuel, since security negligence may cause intended or accidental damage (Prodan, 2017). As a result, all containers are subject to careful inspection at checkpoints, for example, through an X-ray or radiation examination.
The shipment of hazardous cargo can also threaten the critical infrastructures of the host country. For example, according to Prodan (2017), major objects demanding special protection include “sea ports, ships, bridges, oil and gas platforms” (p. 102). In particular, there are many critical facilities and installations around sea ports, such as cranes, pipelines, roads, and fuel storages. (Prodan, 2017). Bridges are considered some of the most vulnerable objects that require enforced security, especially in terms of a possible explosion of transported cargo. Other risks include threats to different kinds of marine vessels, such as tankers and passenger ships. In general, the risks are mostly connected with the possible contamination, fire, radiation, or other consequences caused by hazardous cargo.
In order to improve the overall security situation and eliminate these and other incidents, CSI offers a range of security measures. Those include non-intrusive inspection at the exporter’s port and in the U.S. ports, enhanced border control, customs information, and other ways of security control (Singla, 2019). With the growing cooperation between the U.S. and foreign countries and after the terrorist attacks of 2001, more attention is paid to the security, including shipping-related regulations.
Natural Disasters and their Effects on Critical Infrastructures
Both man-made and natural disasters threaten the safety of citizens and negatively impact critical infrastructures in the affected area. The recent wildfires in California prove the demand for enhanced control over the risks of natural disasters. Wildfires in California emerge during the hot summer and autumn season and are typical for this area. However, the 2018 season became the most devastating and deadliest among others recorded in this part of America. Among the causes of the catastrophe, specialists name an increase in dead tree fuel and dry and hot climate that led to a fire outbreak.
California fires took the lives of more than one hundred people and resulted in enormous costs for the government. Moreover, the damage to critical infrastructure worsened the consequences of the catastrophe and posed more risks to the health and well-being of California citizens. The report by the Department of Homeland Security (2018) presents the affected infrastructure and the negative effect of wildfires. According to the infrastructure assessment, the fire affected exposed communication lines, including the emergency communication system. Electric power and fuel disruptions led to interruptions in fuel transportation and electric system performance. It is evident that the fire destroyed many roads and bridges, though there was no significant damage to railroad operations (California Wildfire: Camp Fire – Projected Infrastructure Impact Summary, 2018). The agricultural sector of the economy also suffered from the devastation of fields and farms. Therefore, it is possible to say that wildfire influenced different kinds of critical infrastructure and caused significant financial losses.
Energy infrastructures are considered especially vulnerable to such abnormal climate conditions. Energy and gas stations, fuel storages, and other related structures can cause fuel disruption and lead to explosions and consequent human losses. Fires in California were followed by a significant decrease in the energy sector. According to Moftakhari and AghaKouchak (2019), “substantial new investment is required for an additional 38.5% peak generation capacity to compensate the decreased efficiency of generators and substations” (p. 2). Moreover, the threat to energy infrastructures can be increased due to extreme rainfalls in the affected areas (Moftakhari & AghaKouchak, 2019). As a result, these objects should be provided with special control during the periods of high wildfire risk.
References
Current Members (n.d.). United Nations. 2020, Web.
Department of Homeland Security (2018). California Wildfire: Camp Fire – Projected Infrastructure Impact Summary. Web.
Moftakhari, H., & AghaKouchak, A. (2019). Increasing exposure of energy infrastructure to compound hazards: Cascading wildfires and extreme rainfall. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 1-8.
Prodan, T. (2017). Maritime terrorism and resilience of maritime critical infrastructures. National Security and the future, 1-2(18), 102-122.
Resolution 2341 (2017) on the protection of critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks, S/RES/2341 (2017). Web.
Sahakyan, M. (2017). Comparative analyses of Iran’s and the DPRK’s nuclear issues in the UNSC (2006-2013). Iran and the Caucasus, 21(2), 230–239.
Singla, S. (2019). What is Container Security Initiative (CSI) and how does it work? Marine Insight. Web.