The New York Times reports today that several flights from Europe to the United States were cancelled today due to terrorist threats. An excerpt from the articles states that:
"American officials said they had alerted their foreign counterparts in Britain and France to their concerns about the Sunday and Monday flights and, under protocol that has been refined since the holiday groundings, urged the enforcement of extra security measures. Those measures included the requirement that British Airways and Air France post armed sky marshals on the flights, said a Bush administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
American officials have warned that if foreign carriers do not comply with their demand that armed marshals be placed on flights of concern, the flights will run the risk of not being allowed into American airspace. The demand has produced resistance in some countries, including Britain, the United States' main ally in its campaign against terrorism.
The administration official said that the United States made it clear that it would require armed marshals on board. And British officials agreed that if the plane were to take off, marshals would be on board. The British elected to cancel the flights."
I am both unqualified and totally underinformed to make any judgments about the nature of the terrorist threat as it applies to these flights and others that have been affected before. What I would like to point out is that the US Homeland Security people seem to be suggesting that things would be much easier for the Europeans if they just accepted armed skymarshals aboard their aircraft. It seems to me that the US government is once again suggesting that the only right way to do it is the US way (i.e. with armed, as in gun carrying, marshals). What the US seems not to understand, is the European dislike for guns.
Bowling for Columbine was a huge hit here in Germany. People talked a great deal about Michael Moore and about the United States' fascination with the personal firearm as portrayed in that film. In contrast to the "lively" Second Ammendment discussions that go on in the US, there is a very strong consensus in Europe that guns are for hunting, not for self-protection.
I wonder why the US is so focused on armed marshals as the only solution. Would not better security at the airport be a more practical prophalactic solution than having the Lone Ranger sitting up in first class? Until the September terrorist attacks in the US, I remember being thoroughly unimpressed by airport security in the US when I compared it to the security at Frankfurt airport in Germany. US airport security is now much tighter and significantly more professional due to the wake up call that the US received in 2001. European airport security was also tightened up a bit after 9/11 although to a significantly smaller degree since the Europeans had much tighter security to begin with. It appears that the US Homeland Security people are presenting the Europeans with an ultimatum and that, at least for the moment, the Europeans are saying, no thank you.
Even if the Europeans did not have long-term experience with terrorism, which they do, it would be laughable arrogant for the Americans to just assume that their solution to a particular problem is the best one. Just because the US was asleep and is now relatively more awake, does not mean that it has a monopoly on how to best execute anti-terrorist security.
Posted by Alan at 31.01.04 22:47