Nervous nation

THE intelligence community has the jitters. The last time it intercepted this amount of terrorist ``chatter" was in the days preceding the monstrous events of September 11, 2001.

The world's spy agencies don't want to make the same mistakes again. They thought then that the targets would be ``overseas". The intelligence they are picking up now indicates the same. They fear it might be another diversion.

The bombings in Morocco and Saudi Arabia strike a frighteningly similar pattern to the operations so ruthlessly carried out by al-Qaeda foot soldiers before the attacks on America.

The war in Iraq was supposed to reduce the risk of terrorist attack against the West. The Prime Minister, John Howard, said so, many times, as he prepared the country to join the military campaign.

But people are becoming increasingly sceptical of that claim. The war was supposed to be about finding weapons of mass destruction, too, and keeping them out of the hands of terrorists.

Yet, no such weapons have been found and the frequency of terrorist attacks seems to be increasing.

Howard and his ministers are maintaining their line, arguing that the post-Iraq world is a safer place, even though their actions seem to contradict their words.

A week that began with the Government announcing a new Army Reserve response force to tackle counter-terrorism support duties ended with the announcement of a new centralised counter-terrorism and security unit being set up in the Prime Minister's Department to oversee homeland security.

In between emerged a new tape, purportedly from Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahri, calling for suicide attacks against Australian targets. It was the fourth broadcast to nominate Australia on al-Qaeda's hit list. The previous three had come directly from bin Laden.

The Federal Government maintains there is no reason to lift the threat assessment for Australians and Australian interests overseas. But at the same time, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has upgraded travel warnings to a clutch of countries and issued a new general warning cautioning of the increased level of terrorist activity around the world.

A DFAT official also revealed this week that security at Australian diplomatic posts overseas was being substantially upgraded.

As the first of the Bali bombers face the courts, there is a particular concern about the risk of renewed terrorist acts in Indonesia. Amid this climate of fear, it is not surprising that recent polling on both sides of politics shows that security and counter-terrorism remain the key issues of concern in the electorate.

Labor is making a good run at elevating Medicare to the front of voters' minds, but the fear of paying more at the doctor will never trump the fear of terrorist attack.

Managing the politics of terror and fear is a fine balance. It works in the Government's favour for the people to be a little scared about the possibility of an attack on Australian soil, as long as they also believe that the Government is doing all it can to protect them.

But it is politically counterproductive for that fear level to rise too high, because then the people might hold the Government responsible for exposing the country to a greater terrorist threat.

Labor has been hammering Howard on that point. It says the recent spate of terrorist activity proves that the military campaign in Iraq has heightened rather than lowered the risk environment.

Howard wants none of that.

``Clearly what they are doing is they're just saying, `Well, if any terrorist attack happens anywhere in the world after the Iraq war, it's because of our involvement or America's involvement in Iraq'," he said yesterday.

``That's an easy thing to say impossible to prove, illogical and only sustainable if there had been no terrorist attacks and no terrorist threats before the war in Iraq."

He also wants nothing to do with suggestions that the new defence and security unit he is setting up in his department will become Australia's equivalent of the American Office of Homeland Security. Howard has consistently rejected the need for such a body. It does not suit his political objectives to follow the US example. To do so would give the impression that Australia is under the same domestic threat level as America, and that is not a favourable impression for his Government.

``It is in no way a de facto homeland security department," Howard insisted yesterday during a radio interview.

``It's just a desirable administrative change to reflect the fact that in this day and age you need a greater focus on defence, intelligence, security and border protection."

The last sentence is a line straight out of the contemporary political playbook. It says the Government is making constructive changes to better protect the people, even if Howard admitted in the same interview that what he was really doing was merely shifting around existing resources, splitting his international division into two and giving one half a new name.

IN THE US, the terrorism alert level has been raised to code orange, one below the highest level of red. The US Defence Intelligence Agency has lifted its own terrorism warning to its highest level because of concerns about possible attacks against military facilities on American soil.

The Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, announced plans yesterday to put unmanned drones in the air to monitor activity on the American coasts.

Plans are also in train to position mobile anti-aircraft missile systems around Washington and to increase air patrols of the US capital in response to the growing terrorist threat. The most interesting development in the politics of terror in the US has been a strategic shift by the Democrats away from a small-target position of compliance with the Administration line to one that now openly criticises President George Bush's conduct of the Iraqi campaign and his so-called ``war on terror".

Just three weeks after Bush declared that America had seen ``the turning of the tide" in the war on terrorism, the country is back on high alert and the President is under congressional attack.

The Democrat presidential hopeful Bob Graham accused Bush this week of ``letting al-Qaeda off the hook" with his focus on Iraq. Another candidate seeking the Democrat nomination, Howard Dean, adopted the ALP line, declaring: ``We are not safer because of President Bush's war on terrorism."

It may appear an unremarkable statement from the outside, but within the national fervour of post-9/11 America it is akin to heresy.

While the US goes onto high alert in the face of the latest terrorist threats, in Australia the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, says there is no need for any additional measures.

The country has been on an elevated state of alert since the Bali attack and there is no specific information at hand suggesting an attack on Australian soil is imminent, Williams says.

Howard was out on the radios yesterday morning, busily trying to bring down the fear levels and dispelling Labor's suggestions that Australia's involvement in Iraq had made it a front-line terrorist target.

``Australia is a terrorist target because Australia is a Western country," he said.

``We were identified as a terrorist target long before we became involved in Iraq. I want to say that very emphatically."

At the same time, the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, was in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, defending his decision to keep open Australia's diplomatic mission there and declaring that the Federal Government would not allow its foreign policy to be dictated by terrorists.

The latest al-Qaeda threat, apparently from al-Zawahri, ``just reinforces our resolve to stand up to terrorist organisations", he said.

The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, brought more focus to himself this week by suggesting he possessed the elusive ``it" factor of politics, but had difficulty getting ``it" across.

The Liberal Party's pollster, Mark Textor, said in an interview with the Herald that the real ``it" factor of Australian politics was the way Howard commanded the landscape on security and terrorism issues.

``I think these days `it' is about being a sure and true compass in uncertain times and who can best safeguard Australia against external threat and international economic weakness," Textor said.

`` `It' is not just about wanting to flick the switch to domestic issues in isolation. `It' is about heritage and consistency and Howard has a heritage of having to deal with those issues and dealing with them well."

Labor's problem was that its lines on security and the war were unclear and constantly shifting, coupled with the larger problem of Crean's personal inability to engage the electorate in a conversation on any issue.

The social researcher Irving Saulwick took a much more critical view of Howard's tactics.

``My view is that the Government very successfully used the fear of terror and border protection in the last election and in a sense built on an incipient xenophobia and made it flourish," Saulwick said.

``It was a conscious policy, a conscious political strategy no doubt reflected by people's views in the electorate. But it was a callous use of the electorate."

Saulwick said the impact of the politics of terror and fear needed to be seen against the backdrop of significant social and cultural change in Australia over the past decade.

The effects of globalisation and the sense of opening up to the world had meant that many of the old certainties of Australian life were difficult to hold on to.

``It is like someone who has become ill and because of that becomes susceptible to secondary infections," he explained.

``Australian society has been buffeted by so many new pressures that people are sort of losing their sense of security as a consequence and the threat of terrorism has taken on as a secondary infection."

As that infection takes an increasing hold on the Australian electorate, the federal Labor Opposition is faced with a difficult new challenge on how best to respond to the Government's security and terrorism agenda.

The small-target approach did not work on the Tampa and children overboard controversies and there is little chance the Opposition can beat the Government at its own game on terrorism.

But there are also inherent risks in finding new ways to differentiate itself from the Government, as the electorate searches for certainty and leadership at a time of threat.

The next political flashpoint will come next month when the Senate is scheduled to again consider the Government's controversial ASIO legislation.

Labor has rejected the laws on three points of principle concerning the proposed detention and interrogation of children in terrorism-related investigations, the length and structure of the interrogation sessions and the detainees' rights to legal repre- sentation.

But Howard has carefully implanted his political wedge into the debate, framing Labor as the party blocking new protections against terrorism and warning the Opposition that it will have blood on its hands if an attack occurs before the bill is passed.

That is the sort of ``chatter" that would strike fear into the heart of any political party.