|
|
Get Four
|  | AUGUST 5, 2004
Giuliani: Ignorance of Terror Isn't Bliss "You're safer in knowing about the peril," says New York's former mayor, "even if it makes people much more nervous" Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was entering his final days in office when the city was attacked by terrorists on September 11. The experience changed him forever, and made him a national symbol of someone who helped the city and the country stand up and respond to what had happened. Although he has been mentioned as a possible national political candidate, he remains in the private sector for now, helping client companies best prepare a defense against future attacks. His company, Giuliani Partners, advises on everything from crisis management and data security to promoting technologies that help detect and contain the effects of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive devices (see BW Online, 8/5/04, "Security: What Companies Need to Do"). He recently spoke with BusinessWeek Associate Editor Diane Brady about the latest talk of terrorist threats. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation: Q: When the news came out on Aug. 1, revealing five sites in Washington, New York, and Newark as possible terrorist targets, how did you react? A: I reacted as I have very often over the past two or three years, with a sense that we're much safer now, because we're realistically dealing with the world. We're finding out about things and publicizing them. Although it's disconcerting to hear that al-Qaeda may have plans to attack us, it's much better than where we used to be -- where we weren't finding out about those plans and we weren't alerting everyone to be more prepared. It may seem counterintuitive, but when I hear things like this, it feels like our government is moving in the right direction. Q: So you believe it's comforting that we're onto their plans? A: The most dangerous situation is where you're facing peril but you're not aware of it. You're safer in knowing about the peril and dealing with it, even if it makes people much more nervous. Q: Does this latest warning change anything? A: It shouldn't change anything. The plan for the September 11 attack went back three or four years and maybe even longer. Just because this information went back two years doesn't make it [irrelevant]. Given the length of time they take to prepare an attack, and the discipline they've shown in going about it, that would be within the period of time to be concerned about. Q: Do you think companies in New York City are prepared for a possible attack, in so far as you can be prepared? A: Both with regard to the government and private companies, they're doing a lot more than in other parts of the country. That's probably because we were attacked, plus we're on every one of these lists of prime targets. You have to have had your head in the sand not to be doing anything about it, if you're responsible for large numbers of people. The building I'm in has much more security than prior to September 11, and our company keeps reviewing our plans. We're probably typical of what's going on here. There are always exceptions, but the percentage of companies doing more is higher than in other parts of the country. Q: What are some areas of security that companies ignore? A: There's an attitude of either not wanting to face the realities or not wanting to spend money on facing the realities. For people in companies that have significant numbers of employees, to do the things needed to bring their security [to the] state of the art 2004 requires a certain amount of investment. There are companies that have the foresight to do it, and there are companies that still worry about the bottom line. They keep betting that it's not going to happen. They see it as a cost against the bottom line. Other companies take a different view: No. 1, it protects our people; No. 2, it protects our business; and No. 3, all the money we put in makes us more efficient. The other thing that helped in New York was facing the blackout last year. You realize you're facing dangers to your business, not just from terrorism but from natural disasters, blackouts, and things like that. The second thing that has much more awareness is the need for business continuity. The best example of this was the stock exchange before September 11. In my experience as mayor, the New York Stock Exchange had one of the best security plans and one of the best business-continuity plans of any organization in New York City. And that's one of the reasons why the stock exchange, although right at the epicenter of the attack, was able to get back in a few days. They're a good model of what business should be doing now. Q: Given the expense involved and the fact that the targets named keep coming up in Manhattan, do you worry this will become a less attractive place to do business? A: In a way, New York has become even more attractive as a very exciting place to do business. New York has become legendary in its ability to deal with things and overcome them. New York may be one of the prime targets, along with Washington, but it's also seen as one of the best prepared places. If something happens, the damage will be minimized. I remember, a couple of years ago, we had this terrible situation with a serial attacker and murderer. One woman who was attacked by this guy but survived said she felt safer in Manhattan, because when she started fighting the attacker off, there were a lot of people around to respond. That's sort of symbolic. Yes, this is a prime target. But there's a lot more awareness here, a lot more preparation. There's a police department of 38,000 that are the best trained in the country, and they're doing more than any place else to find about things in advance. On one side, there's the sense you're a target. On the other, there's a lot more being done. Q: But we're not getting the lion's share of homeland security funds. A: We should. I think that the recommendation of the September 11 Commission that funding should be reallocated based upon honest, objective risk assessment is one of their most important recommendations. It reminds me of the way I approached the problem of crime and how to distribute police officers. You don't just distribute police officers on a geographic basis. You distribute them based on need. Where do you need them the most to reduce crime?
  | | |
 Copyright 2004, Bloomberg L.P.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
