Freedom Attacked by its Defenders

It took the United States Government only hours after the September 11 attacks to blame Osama bin Laden, declare it an act of war, announce its own "war on terrorism" and issue an ultimatum to the entire human race: "You're either with us or against us."

I've never thought of myself as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. But the way the battle lines are being drawn by the US and its allies, that is what I am. Why? Because I oppose and intend to actively resist the "war on terrorism".

With its history of military attacks and its persistent and enthusiastic application of the death penalty, the US thirst for revenge is sadly familiar. But the war on terrorism is a whole new kind of combat. It is a frightening escalation of hostilities, and one in which the casualties are overwhelmingly civilian. It could make a casualty of every citizen in every country that has signed up to it. New Zealand casualties are imminent as the Government rushes to short-circuit public consultation and pass the Terrorism (Bombings and Financing) Bill.

Those promoting these kinds of measures claim they are a necessary part of the war. But nobody can deny that they erode our freedoms and undermine our democratic processes. The war on terrorism is being waged in the name of freedom and democracy, but it is actually a war against freedom and democracy.

It is worth considering how it came to be called a war. Liberation movements fighting colonialism or repressive regimes have always been called terrorists. Their actions have always been called crimes, not acts of war. Nelson Mandela, Xanana Gusmao and other freedom-fighters were always held in jails, never prisoner-of-war camps.

The US authorities chose to portray the September 11 attacks as acts of war, to ride the emotional wave of fear and vengeance, and to secure public support for sweeping new powers.

In wartime, people and societies almost always willingly compromise some civil rights to strengthen the power of the state to act against the enemy. Media censorship, checkpoints, ID cards are commonplace and the public tend to be relaxed about the trade-offs involved.

Until now, however, wars have always had certain features: there have been two or more sides that declare themselves as enemies. Each side has had demands it makes of the other; some ultimatum that must be met if hostilities are to cease. So every war has had, or at least has had the potential to have, an end.

In other words, wars are by definition temporary. They may be long but, whatever the outcome, an endpoint is conceivable. It is this inherently temporary nature of war that leads people to agree to surrender their rights to the state for the duration.

The real danger of signing up to the "war on terrorism" is that it is war without end. It is the kind of war, the waging of which would make it near impossible to end.

The threat we are facing will not be solved by a military campaign against Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. Neither will it be solved by giving more power and resources to agencies of surveillance and control. The US spends $70 billion a year on such agencies and was still unable to see what may well have been its prime suspect planning this major operation.

Acts of terror, especially where the strategy is suicidal, are acts of desperation. They are much more likely when there is perceived to be a great injustice and no alternative course of action. As with issues like the alarming rise in high-school shootings in the US and youth suicides in New Zealand, our response to this tragedy must be careful and aimed at addressing underlying causes.

Just as we have discovered that the most virulent mutations of bacteria thrive in sterile environments, so we should recognize that attempts to tighten controls are unlikely to stop desperate people. They are more likely to lead them to more drastic measures, as we saw on September 11.

Perhaps the terror attacks were planned by Osama bin Laden and carried out with the active support of the Taleban in a way that can be documented, with compelling evidence that can be made public and independently verified. But perhaps not.

And if a lone gunman can assassinate President Kennedy, and a cult leader can persuade dozens of people to join him in mass suicide, and any number of individuals can carry out suicide attacks for political reasons, it is conceivable that attacks like those in New York and Washington could have been and could still be carried out by an autonomous cell with nobody else responsible.

No legislation can buy absolute protection from these kinds of attacks.

We have recently discovered that New Zealand's surveillance agencies routinely act outside the law, cannot distinguish political activities from criminal activities and have woefully inadequate complaints procedures. The move to bolster their powers will not increase our security, but it will threaten our freedom.

We should not allow the Government to dismantle our freedoms without our consent, especially when they are doing so through the rhetoric of a war without end.

Dr David Small is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Canterbury.

Next