A white line symbolises the Government's mixed message on national
security, writes Geoff Kitney.
A scar has appeared on the face of Australian democracy, literally.
Eyesore lines of white plastic barriers cut crookedly across the grey
granite and green grass vistas that sweep up and over the roof of Federal
Parliament House. The freedom to stroll on the grassy roof and look down
through the glass skylights of the parliamentary chambers, intended by
the architects to be symbolic of our egalitarian democracy, is now
limited to those who take security checks inside the building and ascend
to the roof by an internal lift.
The barriers are an anti-terrorist measure, ordered on the advice of the
security agencies after Australian forces went to war in Iraq. How they
would stop a determined terrorist is difficult to say. They look more
like the acts of vandals than a security measure, flimsily constructed
and protected by a single security officer with a two-way radio.
These barriers are one of the few domestic manifestations of the
consequences of our involvement in the war in Iraq. They appeared two
weeks ago in spite of the Government's insistence that there was no
evidence Australia faced an increased threat of terrorist attack because
of the war.
In marked contrast to the US and Britain, where security agencies have
assessed that the military actions being undertaken by US and British
forces in Iraq have increased the risk of retaliatory action by terrorist
groups on targets at home and abroad, Australia's security services have
advised the Government there is no such danger for Australia.
Just how and why this is so has not been explained. Despite the
relatively small military contribution to the war, knowledge of
Australia's involvement is widespread. It has been noted regularly by
Saddam Hussein's regime and it has been venomously taken up by Islamic
anti-war protesters in our region.
It beggars belief that this knowledge has not fuelled anti-Australian
sentiment among the fanatics most inclined to use violence to seek
revenge for Australia's military alliance with the great American
infidel.
Since the war started two weeks ago I have had several calls from news
organisations in the US and Britain inquiring about heightened security
concerns in Australian linked to its involvement in the war. Without
exception they have asked why Australia has so strongly committed to
joining the war when its nearest neighbour is an unstable country with
the world's largest Muslim population.
Some who know John Howard well believe it is precisely because of our
worrisome neighbour that Howard is so determined to go so far in backing
the US. He sees the military alliance as Australia's guarantee of
security should things go very bad with Indonesia, or elsewhere in our
neighbourhood.
But to say this openly would be extremely dangerous for Australia's
regional relationships. Howard's immediate political imperatives,
therefore, require him to minimise Australian anxiety about the risks of
involvement in the Iraq war.
A key concern of Australians about involvement in this war was that
having troops fighting against and killing Iraqi Muslims would make
Australia less, rather than more, secure in its own neighbourhood. This
required careful management of the politics of terrorist threat
assessment and warnings.
Unlike the US and British governments which upgraded their general threat
advice to their communities, Canberra chose instead to issue more urgent
warnings only where specific threats were identified by the security
services and where it was decided that they could not be dealt with
secretly. This allowed the Government to stick with the heightened
general terrorist threat warning issued post-September 11 and post-Bali
and deal with subsequent warnings on a case-by-case basis.
We have an example of this with the decision to approach Turkish security
authorities, to ask them to provide specially upgraded security for the
Anzac Day events at Gallipoli. Security sources say the approach was made
after an assessment by the Government's anti-terror experts, who also
recommended an upgrading of the official travel advice for Australians
planning to visit Turkey.
The political spin-off from this more finely calibrated approach to
threat assessment and warning is apparent in opinion polling done this
week by UMR Research, which found that community fears of terrorist
attacks on Australia have actually decreased since the Iraq war started.
This is in stark contrast to the US and Britain, where community fears of
terrorist attacks have sharply increased since hostilities commenced in
Iraq.
The Government's careful management of community anxiety about a
potentially heightened terrorism threat related to the Iraq war has also
had an impact on its plans for giving ASIO additional investigative
powers.
At the end of last year Parliament sat for a record 27 hours straight as
the Government tried to force through legislation intended to give ASIO
greater powers to hold and question people who potentially possessed
information about possible terrorist attacks.
The Government said the new laws were needed because of the heightened
risk of terrorism. It accused Labor, which with the minor parties wanted
major amendments watering down the legislation, of endangering Australian
lives.
On March 20, just two hours after the Iraq war began, the Government
reintroduced the legislation. It said Australia could not afford for the
passage of the bill to be delayed any longer. The Opposition signalled
its intention to continue opposing aspects of the legislation it said
were a draconian attack on individual rights.
Last week Parliament went into recess until the Budget on May 14, without
the Government making any further attempt to get the bill through. To
have gone into political battle for tougher security legislation when the
Government was working hard to downplay the domestic security risks
associated with the war would have mixed the message and undermined the
Government's political strategy.
When the war is over and community fears linked to the war subside, you
can be sure the legislation will come back and the Government will try to
use it to show Labor is soft on terrorism. Meanwhile, the Government has
gambled that there will be no terrorist attacks on Australian soil or
Australian targets elsewhere. It is cynical, high-risk politics. But it
seems to be working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962881381.html
