Dr. Bahaa Helmy writes: The Security Crisis Center, Between Managing Crises and Creating Them

The names may differ from one country to another — security crisis management centers, security media centers or security operations departments — but they share the same competences and tasks: managing security crises with skill and professionalism. Failure to manage any stage of a crisis leads to a crisis actually breaking out and its events escalating.

Applying this, we saw no role for the Security Crisis Management Center in the Bahariya Oasis incident, in which the finest soldiers on earth, men of the police, were martyred. The field was left wide open to the media, which drew their information from websites, Al Jazeera and the audio clips and rumors that circulated. The result was the weaving of many painful stories and accounts that affected the hearts of all Egyptians. This also helped cast doubt on the policies of the security establishment and hold it responsible for the failure of the mission, despite the efforts and sacrifices made every day by the men of the police and the armed forces.

This raises many questions about the role of the Security Crisis Center. Was a crisis management team formed? Were scenarios prepared in light of the available information, based on the essential question "What if...?" Was the crisis planned for and were its stages managed? And where were the media communication channels needed to take control of the situation by seizing the initiative?

The Oasis incident called for the establishment of a war room or emergency center bringing together a select group of security and media experts of a high level of competence and professionalism, to carry out their roles in coordination with the competent agencies; for a media communications plan operating around the clock to communicate with the public and present the facts to it; for filling any gap in information with careful calculations until accurate information arrives; for announcing the times of press conferences and of officials' media appearances; and for dealing with rumors as they arise.

However, the handling of the incident appears not to have been equal to the event, nor was it consistent with the scientific and security approach followed in managing security incidents and crises in various countries of the world. For example, in the terrorist attacks that took place in France, the world saw the security official appear on television screens immediately after the first attack to announce that information was being gathered and the necessary measures taken, while calming citizens and informing them of the steps required of them. He was followed by the Minister of the Interior and then the head of state, who communicated with the people and reassured them until the event ended and its effects were contained. Almost the same procedures were followed in Belgium when a terrorist attack took place at Brussels Airport.

Although the French security services were criticized for having been aware of imminent operations yet unable to prevent or thwart them, this did not prevent the security agencies there — nor did they consider it a shame — from announcing that a mistake had occurred or that the events were being studied, out of honesty and credibility. The absence of information and the failure of any official to appear from the very beginning of the crisis is not merely a failure in crisis management; it created a new crisis and led to the spread of random and orchestrated rumors that caused grave harm at the public level. The time has come for study and analysis in order to benefit from the lessons and experiences, to ensure that such incidents are not repeated, and to deal effectively with the crisis face to face, before laying the blame on the media — most of which are marked by a lack of professionalism, a failure to abide by the press charter, and a failure to exercise care and caution in preserving the country's national security.