Editorial: Lack of vigilance a worry

Terrorism on the scale the world saw nearly 15 months ago has changed the way nations think about their security. Before September 11 last year it was only in desultory academic discussion that defence analysts gave attention to the possibility that a terrorist group could hold a country to ransom with, say, a weapon of mass destruction. And back then terrorists were thought to be fanatical but essentially rational beings, capable of being deterred by superior force and their likelihood of capture or death.

The shock of September 11 was not just the scale of the operation and the destruction it caused, but the suicidal character of its frontline forces. Terrorists who believe that dying in their cause guarantees them religious reward in an afterlife are immune to military or criminal dissuasion. They pose a challenge to conventional defence policy and this week the Herald has asked how well New Zealand is meeting it.

The answer is not impressive. Our primary anti-terrorist force remains the police, with the help of the Security Intelligence Service. Since September 11 both agencies have been allocated an extra $3 million. The police have set up a specialist counter-terrorism intelligence gathering group of their own and the SIS is boosting its staff by up to 25. Senior police have been assigned to Washington and London as liaison with counterparts there. At the border, customs and immigration have also received extra funds for closer vetting of goods and people entering the country.

But there is no sense, even after the Bali explosions in October, of a heightened vigilance within this country. When Australia is on al Qaeda's list of targets, as it was in the last recorded message from Osama bin Laden, New Zealand must assume it is also in the organisation's sights. From a distant perspective there is little to separate the two countries and we cannot suppose al Qaeda have studied the subtle differences in our foreign policies. New Zealand fought with the United States in Afghanistan and has sent a naval vessel to help patrol the entrance to the Gulf.

The more vigilant Australia becomes in protecting its borders and institutions, the greater the risk that terrorists will seek an easier target in this part of the world. We must at least match Australian precautions and assist them where we can.

We must also take a close interest in Australian diplomacy towards those states which have to cope with religious political extremists. In that respect the Prime Minister has done well in her public comments on the unfortunate statement by her Australian counterpart at the weekend.

As she said, John Howard's suggestion that Australia reserved the right to breach the sovereignty of a neighbour in its own defence is not as threatening as it might first appear. It presumes that Australia knows of a direct threat to itself emanating from another country and that country refuses to prevent it. Both conditions are unlikely to be met.

If a country is sufficiently sure of a looming attack from within the jurisdiction of another, and the other country refuses pre-emptive measures, it would seem tantamount to an act of war. It is hard to imagine any of Australia's neighbours putting themselves in that position. Indonesia, for one, has been open to Australian help in investigating the Bali bombing.

Countering terrorism requires countries not to make needless enemies of another state, and to avoid tarring all Muslims with the extremists' brush. It requires a vigilant public aware of the difference between people of distinctive dress and religious practices, and those who are acting suspiciously. The suspicious are unlikely to dress or live in a way that would draw attention. If the country was properly prepared for the new form of threat, our defence policy would be more imaginative and the public more alert.

Herald feature: Defence