Political review: We now have enemies

By JOHN ROUGHAN

For generations which has never experienced war - which includes almost all MPs - Wednesday was a taste of the mortal dread wartime generations would have known.

To turn on the television in the early hours that morning, to see the towers of the World Trade Centre burning and falling, the Pentagon in flames and hear, for too long, no word from the White House, was to wonder, what more?

For several hours, time was the only friend. As time passed, and further targets did not materialise, it became a matter of grasping the scale of death and the terrible destruction already done.

But for a few hours the lucky generations looked into the abyss that wartime societies had seen. The order of life had been shaken and in the lifetime of these generations it might never be taken for granted again.

Throughout the world, politicians sensed the change, the peaceniks as much as the warriors. In Wellington, Green Party co-leader Rod Donald was uncharacteristically wary of comment. Inveterate anti-intelligence campaigner Nicky Hager could not be reached.

National's defence spokesman Max Bradford began a speech to the Institute of International Affairs saying that he had ripped up his notes at 2 am.

The morning's events were "incomprehensible by any historical or moral standard I know of", he said.

"Pearl Harbor doesn't come close. There was at least a state of war throughout much of the world at that time. Things are different now. Terrorism knows no boundaries, respects no nation and regards civilians as part of their war. All in the name of a religious fervour I simply don't comprehend. Do you?"

Ordinarily, Parliament would have paid its respects to the dead and adjourned on Wednesday. But for the likes of Act leader Richard Prebble, too much needed to be said.

Paying his respects, he said: "The Americans believed yesterday their country was safe from this type of terrorism. Today tragically they know it is not. We should acknowledge what experts are telling us. The best protection against this type of terrorism is intelligence.

"Let's have no more suggestions that we should abandon the SIS or the Government Intelligence Bureau or involvement in Waihopai. Intelligence is our best defence against terrorism."

After each party leader had spoken on the tragedy, he led into questions.

"Given the extraordinary nature of the terrorist attack in the United States, will the New Zealand Government be doing a comprehensive review of our total security, including defence, and if not, why not?"

Acting PM Jim Anderton replied: "Government security agencies are always looking to learn from events and this is another one of those. I'm impressed with the way agencies have reacted to this."

New Zealand First's Ron Mark weighed in: "Has the Prime Minister received any reports from Nicky Hager and his ilk that in light of the horrific terrorist attacks on the USA they will no longer be seeking to dismantle intelligence gathering facilities such as Waihopai, an essential facility in the never ending war against terrorism?

Mr Anderton: "I think the events are too serious to be raising matters about a single individual."

Act's Owen Jennings wanted to know whether the Government still intended to disband the combat wing of the Air Force.

"If the advice to the Government was that risks to New Zealand were equivalent to the US we could review it," Mr Anderton replied.

"But let me just say, the American Government has at its disposal the most up to date Air Force in the world. It did not stop civilian airliners crashing into their buildings and into their own defence headquarters. I don't see how the might of the New Zealand Air Force could have done better."

Mr Bradford asked if the Alliance would be changing its policy towards the security services and the Waihopai base "given the fine words we've heard from the Acting Prime Minister this afternoon about ensuring we can meet the challenge of terrorism".

The Greens' Keith Locke asked: "Does the Acting Prime Minister agree that one way to counter terrorism and improve security is to support initiatives such as Unesco's culture of peace programme, to ensure younger generations are committed to non-violence and international understanding?"

Mr Anderton: "I am sure the whole world would benefit from a dose of international understanding."

His heart was not in it. The fulcrum of politics on national security had changed and everyone but Mr Locke knew it.

It is not just the pacifist left.

There had been a strain of thinking on the right that resisted national security reasons for monitoring people's movements and communications.

Well probably no more. The vision of aircraft being hurled into the World Trade Center will haunt every argument against intelligence gathering for the foreseeable future.

"It is a new battlefield," said US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

But it should not be that new. Military planners have been talking for 10 years about new security threats that arise within states rather than between them.

Many of us listened politely and suspected they were trying to justify their existence in the post Cold-war calm. They could paint frightful possibilities of mass terrorism by chemical, biological, even nuclear threats.

It made for fairly gripping seminars, but maybe even the brass did not believe it.

How else to explain that the US could be vulnerable to a multiple hijacking of aircraft by a group sophisticated enough to have its own pilots and able to coordinate movements with remarkable precision?

Much heavier intelligence is only part of the likely response.

President George W. Bush has warned of retaliation not just against those responsible for Wednesday's act, but against any country harbouring them.

That principle will find overwhelming approval from New Zealand. The uncharacteristic attitude in this country since Anzus was undermined might have had its day.

Helen Clark might never again ask who are our enemies. It is a stateless force, fanatical and capable, we now know, of planning death and civil destruction on a frightful scale.