Since September 11, 2001 the Bush Administration has been able to panic the world into all kinds of anti-terrorism measures, most of which have had a detrimental effect on our freedom and privacy.
It is good to see some governments beginning to resist these impositions. Brazilian authorities have been angered at the fingerprinting and photographing of their citizens arriving in the United States and are threatening retaliatory measures.
Several European governments have rejected American demands for sky marshals. A directive banning passengers from queuing for the toilet in flight has been widely ridiculed.
Knowing intrusive security and the resulting limits on civil liberties are more widely tolerated during wartime, the Bush Administration has tried to justify such measures by claiming we are at “war” with terrorism.
However people only accepted restrictions during earlier conflicts, such as World War II, only because they knew they would be temporary. This war on terrorism is a war without end; terrorism has always been with us and is not going to disappear anytime soon.
More people are now seeing that the Bush Administration needs this “war”. Right-wing Republican administrations do better in a climate of fear, when people look to the armed forces and security services for protection. George W. Bush’s foreign policy is almost designed to create terrorists.
Most of the Islamic world has been enraged by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, American support for Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and the mistreatment of Islamic “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. It is not surprising, then, that we are seeing terrorism happening in Islamic countries, including some horrific bombings.
But while the perpetrators are ideological soulmates of Osama bin Laden, they have been homegrown extremists, rather than imported Al Qaeda operatives.
Bush and bin Laden have both worked overtime to portray Al Qaeda as a powerful organisation. But if it is, how come Western countries have been virtually free of international terrorism over the past couple of years?
Those who think we live in a new era of terrorism should check the statistics for the 1970s and 80s when international terrorism, such as aircraft hijacking, was much more prevalent.
Despite security warnings every other week, there has been a distinct lack of terrorist activity in the US since September 11. The only person arrested and convicted has been Richard Reid, a lone crank travelling to Miami with explosive powder in his shoes.
Yes, there have been several “orange alerts”, but have you seen evidence that any of them were justified? If there were some substance to the threats, surely somebody would have been named or arrested?
The one thing we can’t do is trust American intelligence agencies, which are required to hype the security threat to justify Mr Bush’s “war on terrorism”. Hoaxers must be having a field day as the FBI treats every phone or email threat as a gift from heaven.
Of course, no one can rule out another terrorist bombing. But here in New Zealand, where the only significant terrorist act was committed 18 years ago by another Western Government, the French, we should examine American edicts with more objectivity. Unfortunately, our officials are used to following the lead of their American or Australian colleagues.
We already see the Civil Aviation Agency bending to the pressure for sky marshals. We should tell the CAA and the Government that armed in-flight security is not justified and would cause inconvenience and risk for pilots, stewards and passengers. And we should tell Air New Zealand to not compliantly follow Qantas in doing America’s bidding. Instead, it join European and South African airlines in rejecting these latest dictates.
We all agree that there is a terrorist threat, but not one that justifies America’s over-the-top response. If we allow the state to intrude too much in our lives in the name of “anti-terrorism”, the loudest cheers will be from George Bush – and Osama bin Laden.