Martin Henry, Contributor

Air travel flew into severe turbulence worldwide last week. British police uncovered another terrorist plot, this one to blow up several planes flying over the Atlantic to the United States using liquid explosives.

Airlines cancelled flights. And new security measures kicked in almost immediately. An instantaneous effect right here of the no liquid regulation was the crash of in-bond liquor sales. Commerce felt the crunch.

Among the more bizarre of the new rules were that those travelling with infants must taste the content of each bottle of baby food; female sanitary items could only be taken onboard if unpackaged; and nothing should be taken in pockets. If travelling stark naked with the transparent carrier bag required for documents around the neck had been made a requirement, there would have been takers. We gotta go!

Results of 9/11

One of the main results of 9/11 was the creation of the United States Department of Homeland Security with almost as much speed as the new travel restrictions. The international star of the air travel security crisis last week was not so much the British Government and police, on whose soil the incident occurred, but the US Department of Homeland Security. London, acutely aware of its subordinate role, immediately briefed President George Bush. Prime Minister Tony Blair, on holiday in Barbados, would have heard of the crisis in the same time frame as the U.S. President.

An integrated, globalised world is facing a severe security threat. We here saw what 9/11 did to tourism as people refused to fly. With our heavy United States tourist air traffic, and low anti-terrorism capacity, Jamaica could be targeted as a weak point launching pad for future attacks.

The concerns raised about the threat to civil liberties in the United States posed by the response to the security imperative have been largely brushed aside. The mass of people have already, in any case, quietly accepted the surrender of more freedom for security. It is rapidly trending towards being an act of treason to question the trade-off.

There is a law of unintended consequences. The terrorist threat has substantially tipped the freedom/security balance in favour of security. The terrorists have acutely calculated that the fat and full hedonists and commercialists of the 'developed' West have little of their capacity for suffering and death. And they have no illusions that the struggle is a religious one. The 'secular' West cannot, ultimately, avoid a religious response.

New security imperative

The new security imperative requires better screening, monitoring and surveillance capacity. And the means exist. A unique, fool-proof personal identification system, preferably directly attached to the person, certainly cannot be far away. Not only would the system be a great security enhancer, but it would smooth commerce as well as the numerous interactions between the citizen and big government. Everyone in the modern global market is getting swamped by a multitude of ID numbers and passwords. The age of e-commerce and e-government could well use one unique personal key which opens all doors.

National borders will only be an anachronistic obstacle to dealing with the new security risks which a world faces. In any case, they are already being made redundant by the globalisation of commerce, communication, culture, and the movement of people.

Threat to freedoms

The security imperative is now the greatest threat to traditional democratic freedoms. A quarter century ago, Arthur Shenfield, British lawyer, economist and writer, in a different but applicable context, announced, citing Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, in 'Modern Age', that: "The degeneration of democracy into plebiscitary dictatorship and perhaps ultimately into totalitarian tyranny proceeds visibly before our eyes, but we are powerless to arrest it..."

"The time will come, and perhaps soon, even in the apparent citadels of democracy of the North Atlantic," Shenfield predicted, "when the people will abjure democracy." And why? "Mounting disorder will arise in which even democrats will come to believe that only the agonising choice between authoritarian and totalitarian government remains open to them." The response to the troubles will require a faith model that can readily accommodate, and be accommodated by, command and control political authoritarianism. The security imperative is hastening the day.

Martin Henry is a communication specialist.