For today's war commentary, we will leave the epicenter of the conflict and head to the United States, where another kind of war is being fought unrelentingly－－the war against terror. The conflict in Iraq has heightened the country's sense of vulnerability to terror attacks, prompting it to launch Operation Liberty Shield to shore up homeland security. How costly is this homeland security program and will it effectively stave off the threat of terrorism？ Liang Limin has this analysis.
When the US government and its allies decided to strike Iraq, their main justification included accusing Iraq of being an ally of international terrorism. And the ongoing war has been accompanied by a flurry of efforts to patch up security on the home front.
The national terror alert was raised to the second－highest level of orange in a five－color assessment system.
The Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Liberty Shield. It carried out heightened security measures on borders and ports, transportation system, and important infrastructure. All this did not come cheap.
Jia Qingguo, professor of School of Int'l Relations, Peking University, said: "There is always the question of cost. How much are you willing to pay to realize absolute security？ A big question remains as to whether the US government can afford it."
Eager to show support for American troops in combat, the US House and Senate overwhelmingly approved measures to provide nearly 80 billion US dollars to finance the war in Iraq, including about 4 billion as counter－terrorism funds at home.
Yet many lament that the figure falls far short of what is actually needed. To cite one example, the proposed 50 million US dollars for security costs in major metropolitan areas through June could barely cover four weeks in New York state and New York city alone.
While insufficient emergency funds have fired up a political fight within the United States, Professor Jia cautions that the cost for security does not only spell out in fiscal terms. One ominous implication of the pursuit of enhanced security is that on many occasions, individual freedom has been sacrificed.
"A lot of security questions are related to freedom and privacy. one doesn't want one's eye texture to be registered just to being identified. Absolute security means absolute insecurity," Jia added.
The USA Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of September 11, gives the FBI the right to monitor gatherings, send undercover agents to houses of worship, even eavesdrop on conversations between lawyers and their clients held in federal custody without judicial permission－－circumstances that would be unimaginable or unpalatable at times of peace.
Yet the professor says that since Sept. 11, and even more so since the beginning of the war, Americans have shown extraordinary tolerance for sacrificing freedom in the name of security. Many have also bought into the argument that the war is part of the overall strategy to erase the "perceived threat" from international terrorism.
But the war, Professor Jia says, won't facilitate that end and the solution to rooting out terrorism lies beyond that.
"After the Setember 11, Americans raise a good question 'why do these people hate us'. I think it is a good question and the US political elite would seriously think about it. For one thing, the present international political and economic arrangements have some innate problem which provide the hotbed for terrorism growth. At the same time, the current US middle east policy is also problematic. But instead of reflecting on its own, the official answer is 'these people attack us because they hate us. they hate our freedom,' " Jia said.
"Despite the frenzy of efforts to swell up homeland security, experts say US national security will in fact be negatively affected as a result of the war. Among other things, it will likely exacerbate tension and distrust between the US and the Arab world. And the frustration may drive more to take up arms and launch attacks. To quote Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, "if there is one bin Laden now, there will be 100 bin ladens afterwards."
|
