Warnings on terrorism not issued lightly
Terror is normally a misnomer for mass murder. When bombs or bullets shatter the peace of civilian life, many people are not normally terrorised, as such, even in the city where it occurred. Most citizens go about their lives the next day sensibly, realising the risk is very low. Real terror, or something approaching it, occurs when people are told a terrorist act may be about to occur in their vicinity. That is what has happened to the citizens of Brussels this week.
In the aftermath of the Paris killings, one of the suspects was believed to have escaped to Belgium, prompting the authorities there to shut down much of the city including its subway and schools. The Prime Minister said, “We fear an attack like the attack in Paris . . . meaning several individuals conducting an attack in Brussels, possibly in several places at the same time.”
It is not hard to imagine the effect of an announcement such as that. Just replace the word Brussels with “Auckland”.
It is surely not a warning any Prime Minister would issue unless absolutely necessary. Belgian security agencies must have had very good intelligence that an attack was imminent, and may still be a high risk. Despite arresting 16 people in raids of 22 houses in and near the city on Monday, Brussels remained under partial lockdown yesterday. Several suspects of the Paris attack came from the Belgian capital, where members of a jihadist cell are said to have returned from Syria.
The United States also raised the level of alert yesterday, issuing a rare travel warning that applies worldwide. The State Department advised US citizens to “exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation” almost anywhere, saying it has information that a number of jihadist groups “plan terrorist attacks in multiple regions”. The White House has no reason to be authorising such a blanket warning lightly, since it feeds the fears being stoked by Republicans seeking their party’s nomination for President.
In fact no government issues these sorts of warnings without reluctance, for every time one does so it does the terrorists’ work for them. The fact will not have gone unnoticed in militant circles that a credible threat is more terrifying than an occasional act of so-called terror.
Governments will also be aware that each time public fears are heightened, the political climate becomes more difficult for some immigrant communities. In Australia, three-quarters of the population believes a large-scale terrorist attack is likely within the country and a quarter believe one is imminent, according to a poll at the weekend. In Sydney’s Martin Place, where an Isis imitator died with hostages in a cafeteria last December, rival demonstrations for and against population diversity had to be separated by police on Sunday.
New Zealand is not immune to these fears and tensions, or indeed the threat that causes them. But so far, our Government has not seen fit to raise the level of alarm. The Prime Minister says one or two of about 40 people under watch are under fulltime surveillance. No country should have cause for terror if its security services are doing their job.