"The airlines, as owners [of airports], would be sensitive
not only to the direct impact on their profits, but the indirect impact as a result
to unhappy customers who chose alternative modes of transportation."
This is suggested by Joseph Stiglitz, former US Council of
Economic Advisers, in a Financial Times article. In this, he discusses
the UK
airports "debacle" of this summer, triggered by the discovery of the terrorist
plot to blow up aircraft. He argues that the BAA (British Airport Authority)
lacked efficiency and sufficiently trained staff for security checks. So
airlines should own the airports so they can modernize security measures with
the latest equipment and new highly trained staff.
Who is earning – and how much – from this business carried
out in the name of terrorism? Before 9/11 expenditure on security was not that
big. The US
administration acted as a "pioneer" when they spent billions on renovation of
the existing security system. The money was spent on measures including new
training of security staff, new security cameras, metal detectors, arms and
other devices. Spending on the army and its operations is separate from this.
This
year the US Senate approved a $447bn defence spending bill which includes $25bn
for military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
It is 5.7% larger than the 2004 defence
budget, excluding the Iraq
money, but is 1.7% below what George W Bush was asking for.
The US mid-term elections results
showed the reaction of ordinary Americans towards the intentions of
"omnipotent" Bush and the neo-cons. People are beginning to see through the
rhetoric, as cuts in social benefits were "justified" through the panic
they were spreading. After 9/11 the "common people" were led to worry about
their personal and "national" security and thus to see the need for new
security measures.
In all this, civil liberties and personal privacy were
targeted mainly to exacerbate the feeling of fear. Hotels, casinos, shopping
malls, etc., and any place with crowds of people were asked to ensure
"security", that is, to buy more and new equipment.
Private security companies started offering expensive
services like security staff and systems, to meet this heavy demand. An
increase in profit margins and a boom in the security equipment industry after
9/11 attracted more producers and investors in this business, as there was
already bearish behaviour in other traditional businesses for some time.
Whenever there is a rise in production, a battle for markets
ensues. The problem that the "market economy" usually faces is that it can't
always have the markets it needs; and so it has to create markets. This cruel
process removes the progressive veil that hides the dreadful face of the
capitalism. Creating a market for the security business required the same level
of panic, feeling of being threatened and instability in other parts of the
world too. More fear, more sales and more profits.
Instability means
customers
Saudi Arabia (KSA) is one of the countries with the highest
level of defence spending. It has been increasing its defence spending
tremendously over the past 16 years. The latest "justification" by the KSA
authorities for assigning mammoth amount of money arms expenditure is the
"threat from Iran".
A single reactionary statement by Iran's
President adds more dollars to the US reserves. The KSA is set to
spend billions of dollars updating its military hardware, from fighter jets to
security equipments. The oil-rich kingdom has "traditionally" sourced its arms
from suppliers in the US and
Britain.
The latest sale was of 24 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, radios, armoured
vehicles and other military equipment worth more than $6bn. Another Eurofighter
Typhoon jets deal with Britain
will cost the KSA more than $10bn. Expecting the KSA to be a hot customer,
French President Chirac visited the country this March to play his part in
bidding for a part of this lucrative business. For a decade French defence
company Thales has been battling to win a 7bn euros ($8.4bn; £4.8bn) deal to
supply Saudi Arabia
with border security
equipment. Meanwhile, Dassault, the makers of Mirage and Falcon aircraft has
been lobbying hard for Riyadh
and the Saudi air force to buy its Rafale fighter jets.
Missile Defence
System for hotel
Dubai is a small state within
the UAE in the Middle East facing no security
threat or war. No terrorist attacks or other such activity has been hitherto
reported there. After 9/11 airports with flights to the USA and other
places crowded by rich tourists and businessmen were "advised" that they should
update their security measures to ensure "safety". So it too has to spend an
extra $5bn per year just for security equipment maintenance, other than routine
army expenditure. To make this clear: this is government spending, as official
private spending figures are not publicly available yet because they are
astoundingly high. The level of private spending can only be guessed at by looking
at one "small" example. Recently an underwater luxury hotel, under
construction, was declared unsafe, so the private construction company bought a
"missile defence system" for hotel security systems from a US company in
order to get a safety clearance certificate. A row erupted around the issue of
six American ports being run by the ‘Dubai Ports Authority' and rumours were
spread by mighty US security
companies to promote Dubai
as unsafe in order to sell security equipment. It is in fact very difficult to
find news in the newspapers about defence spending by private companies of
different countries.
Britain: a society-under-surveillance!
Countries such as Britain,
that was not that insecure before the Iraq war, started facing serious
security problems. Blood and corpses were seen on the streets of cities that in
the past were considered safe. Pro-war sentiments to justify the so-called "War
on Terror" were aroused by the extensive use of footage of the horrendous
carnage. People who had been peacefully living together for a long time were
now asked to start fearing each other. A feeling of mistrust was promoted.
Action was taken by the Blair government to limit civil liberties and the
privacy of common citizens following in the path of their US mentors. To
some extent one could say that Blair has outdone the Bush administration in
harassing its own people.
Britain has 4.2million public close circuit TV (CCTV) cameras
installed around the country, estimated as one camera for 14 people. That is
the highest level of surveillance of any country in the world. One report by
"Surveillance Studies Network" revealed that every person in Britain is
caught on average 300 times a day on security cameras. The report producer
David Camiwood explained how shopping habits, the movement and behaviour of
people are monitored continuously for "security reasons". Preferred travelling
routes on buses and trains are recorded in databases. Automatic number plate
observation system of vehicles is used for recording the private transport
owner's travel. Institutions and firms are being advised to increase the level
of observation of their staff. This level of surveillance is not only an absurd
interference in a citizen's privacy but it also unleashes unnecessary levels of
panic which can provoke misjudgement. The "accident" such as the murder of an
innocent Brazilian by police is an example of this. Information Commissioner
Richard Thomson revealed his level of astonishment when he stated that "Britain is
turning into a "society-under- surveillance!"
Who finances "war on
terror"?
All this is being used to justify an increase in defence spending by $6.8 billion (£3.7 billion) in the last
three years to a total of $65.1 billion (£35.2 billion). This is the longest
period of planned "sustained real growth" in defence spending for over 20
years. Additional resources are being made available to "modernise" the UK's Armed
Forces to meet the "challenges" of the 21st century. The results of this prodigal
expenditure can be seen clearly in
the lives of ordinary British people. They are not only paying more taxes but
also feeling more insecure at the same time. They are the one who are actually
paying for everything, whether it is for war or life itself.
The number of British service personnel who have been killed
since the beginning of Operation Telic – the British operation in Iraq – is 120.
Of those, 89 died in "action" while the rest died either in accidents or of
natural causes such as illness. Many have remained unexplained or are still under
investigation. "Combat Stress" (the Ex-Services
Mental Welfare Society). An army institution for stress management, has
reported that two thousand servicemen have been found mentally ill or with
serious psychological problems. One survey report says that one in five wants
to leave the army, but the problem is that Blair doesn't want to leave Iraq.
There is constant intrigue to
break the power and unity of the working class by using the fear of terrorism.
One after another, controversial statements are delivered to raise non-issues
among the ordinary people. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is very much at
home in this kind of thing. He never misses a chance to raise topics of
discussion that are aimed at pitting worker against worker.
The pettiest intrigues
Questions need to be asked. What
is terrorism? How did it suddenly come to be so much at the centre of debate?
Where did Al-Qaeda come from? Does it really exist? These are questions which
everyone seems to have an answer to. The problem is that the media feed us with
a plethora of lies and absurd statements whose aim is to scare people so much
as to facilitate the real hidden intentions of the powers that be. "Foiling the
terrorist plot" to blow up passenger aircraft this summer, which resulted in restrictions
on the carrying of liquids onto planes was one of them.
It is extremely difficult, if not
almost impossible, to produce an effective explosive from liquids carried on
board a plane. You would also have to keep some of the ingredients at very low temperatures;
you'd have to take an ice pack on board with you. Ignoring basic chemistry, the
authorities pointed the accusing finger at that terribly dangerous liquid…
water! By using several ingredients it is theoretically possible to produce the
dangerous explosive "Triacetone Triperoxide" (TATP). But you need the chemical
ingredients, all in the precise quantities and everything must be done below 10
degrees Celsius otherwise it converts into an ineffective chemical mix. The
process also produces a lot of fumes. Laboratories use strong air evacuation
systems to cope with this level of fumes. And it also normally requires two to
three days work in a laboratory. Even if the most efficient and resourceful
means are available it still requires many hours. How could a potential
terrorist carry all the required ingredients – presumably into the airplane
toilet – and work at it for several hours, all at -10°C, without being noticed?
That it was a scare has now been confirmed by the fact that limited amounts of
liquids and creams are now allowed in hand luggage onto planes flying in and
out of Britain!
And yet, this "drama" was referred
to by bourgeois analysts in many wonderful and varied ways: "Airport debacle",
"Security loopholes in British airports" and even a "mini 9/11". The curious
thing to note is that when they announced the total ban on liquids on planes,
it was main headline news. When they loosened up the restrictions people
travelling were still not aware of it as there were no big newspaper headlines
to announce it. The main thing is that the scare served its purpose in
heightening people's feeling of insecurity. In reality what they are all
humming is the same tune, "attack workers to raise profits". The opening quote
from the Financial Times at the beginning of this article, elucidates
well the real intentions: to take advantage of the situation by creating a
sense of terror and insecurity.
These kinds of cheap manoeuvres
are all we can expect from an obsolete socio-economic system. Whenever the "market
economy" faces crisis its strategists start playing out such "monkey dances".
As Marx said "Pretentiously paraded exertions and philistine terror
at the danger of the world's coming to an end, and at the same time the
pettiest intrigues and court comedies played by the world redeemers…."
Insecurity and instability in
different parts of the world are actually adding value to the profits of the
security companies. Privatisation, pension cuts, interference in privacy so as
to know what to sell, cutting health and education services and moreover the
marketing of security business is being played out behind the curtain of the
"War on Terror". Its meaning becomes clearer if we use the term "War by
Terror". It is the favourite last card up its sleeve, which the ruling class
always plays in periods of crisis historically.
It is truly unbelievable to think
that some person hidden away in the hills of Afghanistan, named Osama, is
holding all the strings of the world. The real truth is that markets are
shrinking, profits are falling, and the giant companies are eating each other
in the name of mergers. But at the same time, the workers are "rising from
their slumbers" from Latin American to Europe
and the system has nothing to offer them.
Real terrorism is capitalism itself, the system
which is forced by its inner mechanisms to make a profit at any cost even at
the cost of life itself. Lenin said, "Capitalism is horror without end!" It is impossible to eradicate this reign of terror so
long as the system that spawns it survives. A society without fear can only be
a society which has no greed for profits and no struggles for markets.
