For Londoners, there is relief, but little comfort in the knowledge that a terrorist plot replicating the atrocity of July 7 failed last week. Sharm el-Sheik was not so lucky. Indiscriminate murder was brought to the Egyptian port as easily as it might have returned to London. It reminds us that any city or resort in any country can be a target for terrorist atrocities at any time. It also reminds us that, ultimately, the war on terror must be an international effort.
A sustained campaign of violence in one city, if that is what we are now facing, feels different from a one-off attack. The call to go about our business as usual issued by the prime minister on Thursday may have calmed nerves at the time.
But such exhortations to behave as usual may ring hollow to those whose travel and work regimes leave them most affected by the lengthening shadow of terror.
We cannot, must not, live our lives expecting the worst, but neither can we ignore the undercurrent of anxiety flowing through the capital.
This is not just an issue for our own peace of mind. For the UK to be seen worldwide as a likely terrorist target brings significant economic risk. Growth, according to official figures published last week, is already at its lowest point in a decade and consumer confidence has stalled. The millions of foreigners who bring their money to the UK's high streets, service industries and financial markets need more than stiff-upper-lip rhetoric and evocations of the Blitz to reassure them.
Words of comfort are no substitute for facts, and the government, police and security services have an obligation to deal honestly and openly with the public. There will be times when operational matters prohibit the disclosure of information. But that possibility must not be extrapolated into a culture of secrecy.
Panic, a principal goal of the terrorists, spreads more effectively in an information vacuum. A culture of openness will encourage greater public co-operation and trust.
The incident on Friday in which a man was shot dead at close range in an Underground station is a good place to start. No one doubts that the police are under severe pressure and at great personal risk as they track down would-be suicide bombers in our midst. So they have nothing to fear in disclosing to a supportive public what happened at Stockwell in south London and in what circumstances armed police are licensed to use weapons. If the menace threatening the police, and us, necessitates shooting without warning, we are entitled to know the rules under which they are operating.
The debate about the practical measures needed to make us more secure without compromising the freedom we enjoy in public spaces and in private communications has been going on since Sept. 11, 2001.
It will now become more heated. But certainly we must expect and accept a more visible police presence, particularly at transport facilities. We may need to investigate the practicality of screening those using public transport or visiting public buildings.
Security services and police are certain to require more resources very soon. We may need to concede them greater powers. But in exchange, the security establishment must concede greater accountability.
Government should not fear an inquiry into the intelligence effort in the months preceding the London bombings. A detailed report of the events themselves, after the model of the US investigation into Sept. 11, would instill confidence. If there is under-resourcing, we need to know and to correct it.
If resources are wrongly focused we need to know that, too. This implies no criticism of the government or emergency services. But placing a full account of the events in the public domain is simply the best way of helping all of us -- government, intelligence and emergency services and citizens -- understand the delicate balance we are trying to strike between preserving traditional freedoms and accepting heightened security.
Fear and terror spread in the gaps where there is no understanding. Give us the full picture and we will judge for ourselves how and when to go about our business as usual.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under