ONE of the least edifying spectacles of the past couple of weeks has been the
sight of political leaders using the attacks on the US to further their own
ambitions or as cover for words and deeds that would be normally be
unacceptable.
Even as New Yorkers were fleeing giant plumes of dust in Manhattan, Ariel
Sharon, prime minister of Israel, was ordering his tanks to tighten their grip
on West Bank settlements. And within days, Northern Ireland鈥檚 Unionists were
seizing on the new mood of antipathy towards terrorism to score points against
their Republican opponents.
Blatant as they were, these examples of political opportunism were at least
transparent. The same cannot be said of many of the hurriedly proposed
anti-terrorist measures coming out of Washington, London and Brussels.
Advertisement
Take compulsory ID cards. Many countries already have them, of course. Now
the British government has signalled its intention to be the first to introduce
plastic photo cards bearing an image of the holder鈥檚 fingerprint or iris, in
addition to the usual name, number and address. There are plenty of reasons why
a government might want its citizens to carry such cards: the biological
identifier would make them harder to forge and less worth stealing, and they
could if used properly help governments to prevent benefit fraud and identify
illegal immigrants. But that鈥檚 not how the scheme is being sold. The British
government is calling it an anti-terrorism measure without bothering to explain
how such cards might help to prevent the kinds of attack seen in the US or
assist investigators afterwards.
Perhaps that is because it is not obvious how ID cards will help. The key
suspects in the New York attacks did not fly in on false passports. They were
long-term residents, members of 鈥渟leeping cells鈥� who may well have died with
their Social Security cards in their pockets. And even if these terrorists had
needed to forge high-tech ID cards, they would surely have had the means to do
so.
If compulsory ID cards are such a great weapon against terrorism, why didn鈥檛
the British government introduce them years ago to combat the IRA? Probably
because it realised that giving police officers the power to stop virtually
anyone they like on the streets to ask for identification is unlikely to catch
many hardened terrorists鈥攁nd extremely likely to exacerbate the religious
and racial tensions that drive people into the hands of extremist organisations
in the first place.
But with governments keen to put up a good show of fighting terrorism,
identity cards have obvious advantages. They look tough, are cheap to introduce,
and are likely to make people feel more secure鈥攅ven if the real threat of
terrorism is undiminished.
Similar tough but empty talk has dominated the issue of how to starve
terrorists of money. Following George Bush鈥檚 warning to banks this week, they
are now on alert not to do business with anyone calling themselves Osama bin
Laden, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, or 25 other suspected terror
organisations. Does anyone imagine these people reveal their allegiance as they
open accounts? One measure would be to require banks to know their customers
better, and so catch any incongruous transactions
(see 鈥淗itting where it hurts鈥�).
Yet the US has led the industrialised world in resisting such legislation and failed to
ratify an international treaty to combat terrorist funding. Worse, the US leads the world
in letting people set up fake companies to move money around. In the state of
Delaware, a terrorist can register a company just by producing a driver鈥檚
licence. Three such companies affiliated with bin Laden appeared on a US hit
list this week. In Britain meanwhile, Gordon Brown has been calling for less
banking secrecy in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. But Europe鈥檚 main offshore
banking centre is London, where money flows with few questions asked.
Wrapped in the flag of country and outrage, much of what is being called for
will serve only to pander to governments鈥� insatiable hunger for control. In this
area, no law is better than bad law.