by Sir Timothy Garden
I write this commentary on yesterday's horrifying events in New York, Washington and Pittsburg while waiting for an early morning flight from Heathrow. The departure lounge is strangely hushed, more like the atmosphere in a cathedral than in a busy airport. No one smiles or jokes with travelling companions, and there are no arguments with the check in staff over the delays. Every newspaper around the world has the impact pictures of the second civil airliner hitting the already burning World Trade Centre. The financial commentors apologise for mentioning that the world markets are experiencing record declines, and that oil prices are soaring. Nobody is prepared to put a figure on the casualties. but it is certainly many thousands of deaths.
It is far too early to speculate on what this means for the world. In the US there are four overwhelming priorities, and each of them will tax the Bush administration to the limits. The first is the rescue effort. The destruction of the World Trade Centre and part of the Pentagon is on a scale that earthquake victims will be familiar with. The painstaking search for those alive but trapped will extend the agony over days. the second (yet equal) priority will be to take every possible security measure to prevent further such attacks either by the original perpetrators, or by copy cat killers. The third, and just as urgent, requirement will be to bring stability to the financial markets, despite the chaos caused by the destruction of such a key node in international market trading. The fourth requirement will be to identify the perpetrators , and wreak retribution. This last will be a political imperative for the President. In the longer term, there is likely to be a major reassessment of US security and other priorities, but that will become clearer over the coming weeks. There will also be a time of recrimination over intelligence, security and policy failures.
How are the priority actions to be undertaken? The rescue efforts started within minutes of the attacks. Many brave firemen and other other support services perished when the towers collapsed. There will be media focus on stories of heroic rescue from the rubble, but these will not stem the building public anger as the official death tolls mounts day by day.
What action can be taken to prevent further terror action of this type.? The decisive fast action to stop all overflights of US airspace by civil air traffic was a very sensible immediate security measure. The UK decision to ban overflights of London seems more of a gesture than a useful precaution. Unless the RAF were flying patrols ready to shoot down deviating flights, it reduces the risk not all. Shooting down an airliner over London is hardly likely to result in a casualty free outcome. In Europe, the pre-flight security measures have been much more thorough than for US internal flights. This reflects the experience of terrorism and of previous hijacks. It may be that airlines will decide to take further measures such as carrying armed guards on flights. This will increase their costs substantially, and also introduce a new threat from the rogue armed guard. In the fight against terrorism, intelligence is the first defence. It seems that the combined power of all the western intelligence organisations was unable to give any warning. This failure will need to be explored rigorously, but will certainly be done behind closed doors. The real antipathy to the United States and its policies in so many parts of the world, is doubtless making intelligence very much more difficult to gather.
Tackling the third priority of stabilising world financial markets is going to require some fast footwork. The stock markets were already reflecting uncertainty and volatility. Some sectors such as insurance, banking and airlines will be badly hit. In a time of falling markets, this may trigger financial failures which reinforce a downward spiral. At the same time the rise in oil price, caused by the worries over Middle East war, may benefit some areas which support anti-US actions.
Finally, there is the question of retribution. This should be international. Indeed, the US could invoke NATO to come to its defence if it so wished. Whatever the alliance of powers which provides international retribution, the first requirement is agreement on where the attack has come from. After the bombing at Olklahoma City, the US is more cautious in rushing to judgement. Certainly the world will benefit if it can unite in its response. Despite American suspicion of the United Nations, a clear response by all the members of the UN could make it much more difficult for terror organisations to find a sanctuary.
There is a danger that the unilateral undercurrents in the USA today will push it into a more isolationist mode. A rapid military response without international support could lead to greater anger in the target country, and even greater risks in the future. The global village is much more vulnerable to action by fanatics than the stone age village ever was.