U.S. plays world bully with airline measures

Last Friday I was again reminded of how visiting the United
States has begun to resemble entering a police-state. As I waited
in line to check my bags at Heathrow Airport, a couple behind me
joked about playing the “spot-the-sky-marshal” game.
Like many others, I find the concept of plainclothes, gun-carrying
officers aboard aircrafts more alarming than reassuring. And my
anxiety is further compounded by the fact that, due to U.S.
pressure, government ministers in Britain and other countries have
rushed into plans for American-style sky marshals policing their
airports and flights. The unilateralist U.S. administration is once
again exporting its policies and deciding how the world is to be
policed.

The sky marshals, however, are only one component of the new
measures introduced to strengthen U.S. security. United States
authorities have also ordered airlines entering its airspace to ban
passengers from waiting in line to use the lavatory ““ a
disturbingly paranoid edict.

And the unpleasant ordeal of 11 hours spent panicking about the
possibility of being on board a plane with a man with a gun, and
whether or not you can use the restroom does not end upon landing.
On Jan. 5, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a vast
scheme for monitoring travelers to the United States with digital
fingerprinting and photographs. The policy applies to all but 28
countries, mainly European, and all people who require a visa to be
in the United States. Thus, because I possess a student visa, my
name, photograph, fingerprints and movements are now on record on a
national database. The troubling thought is that this information
could one day be abused.

For some, such as Brazilian judge Julier Sebastio da Silva, the
decision to photograph and fingerprint visitors is more than an
embarrassing and inconvenient experience. Da Silva told The
Guardian that the decision was “absolutely brutal,
threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and
worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis.” He
commanded that the same be done to Americans arriving in
Brazil.

I do not, however, find the fingerprint and photograph policy
nearly as threatening as the combination of a pressurized cabin and
a gun. There is every reason to be cautious about potential
terrorist threats, but the U.S.-favored policy of guns on planes is
not the answer. I would prefer to see my flight cancelled if there
were a specific threat than allow it to go ahead if a sky marshal
was deployed. Not only do sky marshals threaten the authority of
pilots, but I can see little that can be achieved by having an
armed person aboard a plane.

Similarly there have been countless incidents of police
officers’ guns being used against them on the ground, a
situation which could just as easily arise in the air. A more
sensible option would be to introduce tighter checks on baggage and
passengers on the ground. Yet, apart from a few staunch countries
““ Portugal, Denmark, Sweden and Finland ““ it seems most
countries will bow to American pressure.

Currently, these policies are caught amid a storm of controversy
over the grounding of British Airways and Air France flights.
Earlier in the month British Airways Flight 223 to Washington was
grounded for three days while waiting for clearance from U.S.
authorities.

Flight 223 was reportedly delayed both because of suspect
passengers and the airline’s reluctance to allow sky marshals
aboard its flights. Similarly, many in the French media opined that
the six cancelled Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles this
December were a “punishment” for France’s
opposition to the Iraq war.

Even if this was not a conscious U.S. policy, there is no doubt
that the United States is pressuring other countries to follow its
strict security lead.

The United States is trying to rule though fear ““ the
intent of widely publicizing terrorist threats is to frighten.
Publicizing the threats against Air France and British Airways
justified somewhat suspect policies. It allowed the United States
to decide how the world was to be policed and to ensure that their
policies were accepted on a global scale.

U.S. demands for the introduction of sky marshals only add to
the burgeoning fears and anxieties arising from President
Bush’s “war on terror.” The U.S. administration
has harangued countries into its version of
“protecting” the world, one from which we may in fact
need protection.

De Sybel is a third-year history and English student. E-mail
her at [email protected]. Send general comments to
[email protected].