Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Principles, perceptions and power

By Bill Calcutt - posted Monday, 3 October 2016


There may be no clearer example of the public confusion that surrounds the spectre of terrorism than the persistent mystification of the 9/11 attacks. The key enabler of the 9/11 attacks (that turned passenger planes into guided missiles to strike several iconic buildings in the US) was the absence of hardened and secured aircraft cockpit doors, and the success of the 9/11 attacks was primarily due to relatively simple risk assessment and physical security failures.

Australia's policy responses to the rise of the spectre of terrorism as the pre-eminent threat to national security may have been shaped by a range of unique national circumstances. Firstly, the country may be particularly susceptible to fear-based perceptions because many of our core national values are implicit and largely reliant on volatile political processes to interpret and articulate an evolving national identity. Australia is unique amongst developed Western nations in its failure to institutionalise many of its core values, particularly those that relate to civil liberties.

Secondly, in the increasingly complex, volatile and uncertain environment created by globalisation the spectre of terrorism has been exploited for both political and commercial advantage. Terrorism engages deep-seated underlying anxieties about multiculturalism and the challenges posed by ongoing social and economic changes. Australian politicians compete to bravely protect the community from the threat posed by an evil death cult, while burgeoning and opaque defence and national security industries struggle to consume the largess to flow from the redirection of significant resources towards enhancing defence and national security.

Advertisement

Thirdly, the effective displacement of an objective and transparent national process for estimating and comparing (using the measures of probability and consequences) the relative risks posed to the nation's security by a broad range of hazards has allowed the spectre of terrorism to proliferate. Adopted in the late 20th century, risk assessment enables the logical, evidence-based and proportionate allocation of scarce public resources to greatest effect to minimise the harm posed by all hazards through effective risk mitigation. In the absence of an all-hazards approach to managing threats to the nation's interests, anticipating and responding to the prospects of isolated attacks from armed youth has taken precedence over the prospects of the loss of hundreds of lives due to an inadequately-prepared-for natural disaster (flood or wildfire).

The war on terror has coincided with a dramatic (also technology-enabled) expansion of the state's capacity for mass surveillance. As revealed by Edward Snowden, in the digital age there is little that is not possible with sufficient resources. A combination of zealotry and obsolete statutory regulation has the potential to permanently transform the relationship between the individual and the state and render long-standing conceptions of privacy and civil liberties virtually obsolete. Australians may be particularly susceptible to such compromises in the absence of explicit statutory protections for civil liberties.

At a more general level a policy shift away from principle and rules-based approaches to national security towards utilitarianism (where the ends justify the means) has multiple potential (unintended) negative consequences. Encroaching and often unnecessary secrecy impedes both democratic accountability and essential oversight of government propriety and performance. The securitization of a range of previously civilian government functions (evolving from multiple services to a single force) has the potential to engender a mission-driven organisational culture in these functions.

A heightened level of vigilance amongst community police of a threat from so-called lone wolf attacks could lead to an increase in the unjustified use of lethal force in mental health and family violence confrontations. A growing community suspicion towards particular racial or religious sub-groups has the potential to exacerbate a sense of alienation and antagonism within these communities. And finally the intense coverage given to the isolated barbaric acts of extreme individuals may provide a powerful incentive for emulation amongst vulnerable alienated youth and others with mental health issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bill Calcutt worked in a range of intelligence roles in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and the National Crime Authority from the early 1970s till the mid 1990s.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bill Calcutt

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Bill Calcutt
Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy