http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke_news/19990729_xndfr_state_depa.shtml

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 29, 1999

Answers

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

State Department official stands firm on Y2K dangers

World Bank, U.N. speakers tell conference she uses 'old information'

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By David Franke

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON - Three top government and international agency executives disagree sharply about the severity of the Y2K computer glitch. They spoke at a weeklong conference on Y2K being held at George Washington University.

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, inspector general of the U.S. State Department, repeated the substance of the testimony she gave the previous week to the Senate Y2K Committee. We can expect to see "Y2K- related failures in every sector, in every region, and at every economic level," she said.

Moreover, the inspector general added, "the risk of disruption will likely extend to the international trade arena, where a breakdown in any part of the global supply chain would have a serious impact on the U.S. and world economies."

Her conclusions were sharply challenged by Joyce Amenta, Y2K program director at the World Bank, and Bruce W. McConnell, director of the U.N.'s International Y2K Cooperation Center. Unfortunately for the audience, the inspector general had to leave after her speech, so there was no face-to-face debate on the issue.

"I do see us as being somewhat more pessimistic than other analysts," the inspector general said in her speech. "But we have more information," she said. "We have more details about where the world's governments stand."

"I feel her statistics must be at least two or three months old, maybe more so," said the World Bank's Amenta. "There's been a lot of progress made in that time. Y2K will not be a global disaster. More likely are localized disruptions."

How could three months make that much of a difference, WorldNetDaily asked her, when U.S. corporations and agencies have been working on Y2K remediation for years, and still are not ready?

"It's all a matter of risk," Amenta replied. "It's true that some critical systems will not get fixed, but they have contingency plans and their risk assessment has gone down." She noted that many U.S. agencies had redefined their risk assessment by paring down the number of computer systems they labeled as "mission-critical."

"I don't agree with it (the inspector general's position)," said the U.N.'s Bruce McConnell. "She needs to be more specific and clear."

"For example, there is no threat of a general telecommunications breakdown," McConnell continued. "We need to focus our resources on the most important areas, not everything."

WorldNetDaily asked the inspector general about the credentials of her State Department analysts. Do they have a background specifically in Y2K risk assessment?

"Our Y2K team," she replied, "consists of 10 experienced auditors with extensive experience in information technology. Over the past 12 years, they have devoted 100 percent of their time to Y2K. I consider them to be among the most expert in the field right now."

Since any government is going to put its best face on the situation, WorldNetDaily continued, how can they determine the reality?

"We sometimes get surprisingly frank answers" when it's a government- to-government briefing, she replied. "More often, though," she noted, "local industry is quite willing to share its concerns with us. Those concerns are often quite different from the concerns of their government."

WorldNetDaily then asked whether the State Department is receiving input from U.S. intelligence agencies in its assessments of other nations.

"Yes, we are working with the intelligence community and sharing information," she replied. "In fact, we're in the process of developing a global database of information."

Also on the panel was the Hon. Harlan Cleveland, president of the World Academy of Art and Science and former U.S. ambassador to NATO. He asked the inspector general an ambassador's question: "What are you doing about the readiness of our U.S. embassies abroad?"

"Our embassies are now going through emergency training sessions, and assessing their needs in regard to water supply, power generators, and other necessities," she replied. "We are comfortable that our embassies will be able to sustain themselves for a 30-day period without reliance on the infrastructure of the host country."

She added that American embassies are creating a database of every American working and living abroad. The support and protection of these Americans "is the No. 1 priority of our embassies," she added. And in September the State Department will begin issuing traveler's advisories, identifying the nations where travel abroad may involve risks during the Y2K date crossover period.

The positive stance of the World Bank's Joyce Amenta was the big surprise of the day, since the World Bank had issued a stern report in January about the lack of Y2K readiness in most developing nations. Her current positive stance was mitigated, however, by glimpses of continuing concern.

For example: "The common denominator in developing countries, we've found, is that there's a lack of executive level commitment." (So, how does a cash-poor country make itself "Y2K-ready" when there's no pressure from the top?)

And then there was her statement that "we have seen limited progress in these areas: transportation, small to mid-sized business, government services, regional utilities, oil, health care, agriculture, construction, and education."

That's quite a list for countries that supposedly are no longer in danger!

WorldNetDaily asked about her inclusion of oil on that list - what are the implications for the United States?

"OPEC has already restricted oil supplies," she noted. "U.S. companies relying on oil have already started stockpiling. The connection between oil and transportation is the potential problem. Venezuela and western Africa may not be as ready as we expect."

WorldNetDaily then asked about the lack of public awareness about Y2K abroad - at the recent United Nations gathering of Y2K national coordinators, the Mexican delegate said only 5 percent of Mexicans have ever heard of Y2K, much less understand it. If this is true generally around the world, what are the implications for panic when disruptions begin?

"Five percent is probably high," Amenta replied. Then she added: "Maybe that's an advantage in that there could be less panic, less stockpiling."

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

David Franke is a new Washington-based WorldNetDaily contributing editor for technology and Y2K issues. He can be reached by email.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 29, 1999.

WHAT A MAROON!!!!!!!!

The reason that the World Bank "Analyst" wants to spin positively is that if there is panic about the third world, investors will leave there first. Capital flight is really bad for the World Bank's liquidity needs.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), July 29, 1999.

Thanks Linkmeister!! WorldNetDaily can't be beat. Always glad to find 'any' GIs in Washington. Not surprised by the bank queen's response. Amenta is no better than thief. Maybe worse......

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 29, 1999.

"It's all a matter of risk," Amenta replied. "It's true that some critical systems will not get fixed, but they have contingency plans and their risk assessment has gone down." She noted that many U.S. agencies had redefined their risk assessment by paring down the number of computer systems they labeled as "mission-critical."

-- CP (spoonman@prodigy.net), July 29, 1999.