Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
air
marshal
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2004/06: Should Australian airlines be required to have air marshals on certain overseas flights?
What they said ...
'Ideally we think security should begin on the ground and we would like efforts to focus on stopping terrorists before they board a plane. We do not think that this [air marshals on planes] is the way forward'
A spokesperson for the Dutch carrier KLM
'It [the Australian domestic air marshal program] has provided great assurance for the travelling public that our skies are not only safe but secure'
Australian federal Justice Minister, Senator Chris Ellison
The issue at a glnce
On December 26 2003 it was announced that as many as six armed air marshals would be aboard flights from Australia to Singapore, beginning virtually immediately. This followed the conclusion of negotiations between the federal Government and Qantas as to the respective burden each would carry in meeting the cost of the marshals.
Six days later, on December 31, the American Homeland Security authority issued a directive requiring that all international air carriers carry trained and armed officers on designated flights to the United States. The Australian Government immediately announced that Australian airlines would comply with the directive. The federal Justice Minister, Senator Chris Ellison, further indicated that his department was also negotiating with six other countries to broaden the air marshal program across Asia and Europe.
Despite Australia's current compliance, Qantas has previously expressed reservations about the need for and effectiveness of air marshals. A number of other nations continue to do so.
Background
Since the September 11, 2001, hijacking of four airlines the United States has dramatically expanded its use of air marshals - armed security guards aboard aircraft.
Although the precise number of United States air marshals is classified, sources say as many as 6,000 have been hired since September 11. Before the terrorist attacks, fewer than 50 marshals flew.
Australia also introduced air marshals on domestic flights as early as December 2001 and the Israeli airline El-Al has been using them for many years. Most European nations, including Britain and France, do not.
On December 31, 2003, the American Homeland Security authority issued a directive requiring that all international air carriers carry trained and armed officers on designated flights to the United States. The United States has threatened to deny entry to carriers that fail to comply.
Under the new US directive, anti-terrorism officials can demand armed air marshals be placed on certain flights or refuse entry into United States airspace.
'Ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have,' Mr Ridge, the head of American Homeland Security, has said. 'These directives, effective immediately, are part of our ongoing effort to make air travel safe for Americans and visitors alike.'
The British Pilots' association has opposed air marshals, however, the British Government has acquiesced to the United States directive. Negotiations are currently underway between the pilots and the British Government as to the terms under which they will accept air marshals aboard the planes they fly. At least four other nations, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden and South Africa have refused to abide by the United States directive. Australia will follow the directive.
Internet Information
On September 28, 2001, American Broadcast Corporation News published a report outlining the expansion of the United States air marshal program in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The report details the raining the new air marshals are to receive. It is titled, 'Securing the Skies'. It can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/WTC_airmarshal010928.html
On May 23 2002 USAToday published a report outlining concern over the quality of training being received by the new air marshals. The report is titled, 'Skill level of new marshals in doubt'.
It can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/05/24/air-marshals.htm
On August 2, 2003, The Age published a report by Mark Forbes titled, 'Plan for marshals a "sideshow"'. The report outlines Australian reservations about the air marshal program. It can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/01/1059480553281.html
On December 30 2003 the British newspaper, The Guardian, published a report claiming that the British Government's decision to place air marshals aboard international flights was in response to the American Homeland Security directive.
The article is titled, 'US ordered air marshals on flights'.
It can be found at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1113946,00.html
On December 31, 2003, News24.com published a report outlining South Africa's opposition to the American Homeland Security directive that air marshals be placed on designated flights into the United States. The report is titled, 'No need for air marshals - SAA' The report can be found at http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1464716,00.html
On January 6 MNSBC News published a report outlining Portugal and South Africa's opposition to the American Homeland Security directive that air marshals be placed on designated flights into the United States. The report is titled, 'Portugal, airlines say "no" to sky marshals'
The report can be found at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3827789/
On January 7, 2004, Airwise News published a report explaining Swedish opposition to the American Homeland Security directive that air marshals be placed on designated flights into the United States. The report is titled, 'Sweden opposes air marshals'.
It can be found at http://news.airwise.com/stories/2003/12/1072828610.html
Arguments against having air marshals on certain overseas flights
1. Air marshals may increase rather than reduce the risks of flying
Internal advice from Qantas has recommended that no weapons should ever be allowed on flights, this includes those that would be carried by air marshals.
Some airlines even see the threat posed by guns on aircraft as greater than the risk of a terrorist or a disturbed individual gaining control of an aircraft. That act has been made much more difficult because aircraft have been fitted with toughened cockpit doors designed to prevent unauthorised access.
There is concern that armed air marshals may increase the danger faced by passengers, either because they may inadvertently wound or kill passengers, they may fire shots which could seriously damage the aircraft or their weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists aboard the plane.
'The fact that you have got people behind you in a pressurised cabin with guns and bullets is not a happy thought,' said a spokesman for the British Airline Pilots' Association, which represents most of Britain's 9,200 airline pilots.
It has been claimed that having armed guards on board planes provides potential access to a far more dangerous instrument than any of the makeshift weapons a terrorist may otherwise be able to get past security.
One British industry executive has noted, 'Putting armed guards on a plane means the terrorists don't have to worry about smuggling guns on. They're already there.'
Steve Creedy, The Australian's aviation writer, has claimed, 'A worst-case scenario where hijackers wrested guns away from sky marshals could result in many more deaths than an attack by someone with a makeshift knife.'
2. Proper airport security and other on ground measures should remove the need for air marshals
There are those who argue that the most effective form of air security is that which occurs at airports before the plane ever leaves the ground. According to this line of argument, once an armed terrorist has boarded a plane there are likely to be injuries and lives lost no matter what the actions of an air marshal.
It has been claimed that better on ground surveillance and better intelligence information is the key to aircraft security.
The director of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, Peter Harbison, has called for more intelligence funding as the only effective protection for airline travellers. Mr Harbison has stated that, 'Aircraft are vulnerable to any determined terrorists and plans to place marshals on international flights are just a sideshow.'
Geoff Askew, Qantas head of security and investigation services has also questioned the usefulness of air marshals as a mainstay of airline security. Mr Askew has suggested that the origins of terrorism must also be addressed. Mr Askew has cautioned that governments must 'address the root causes of terrorism and not just focus on punitive and military measures'.
Since December 31, 2004, the United States has attempted to require that designated aircraft coming to the United States carry air marshals. This is to be especially the case where there is some known threat associated with a particular aircraft.
Those who oppose this scheme claim that such aircraft should never be allowed off the ground. The British Airline Pilots' Association has put this position, as have a number of other nations, such as Portugal, Denmark and Sweden, which have refused to abide by the United States Homeland Security directive re air marshals.
Joaquim Carvalho, director of Portugal's National Civil Aviation Institute, has stated, 'We will not authorise loaded guns on Portuguese planes, therefore we will not allow armed guards ... If there is specific information about a particular flight which justifies having armed guards on board, what we would consider is cancelling the flight.'
3. The cost of air marshals is an unreasonable imposition on taxpayers
There are those who have claimed that the deal recently negotiated between the federal government and Qantas represents an unfair and increasing burden on Australian taxpayers.
Referring only to flights to Singapore, it is believed that it will cost the government $5 million a year to cover the forty-seven weekly return flights. That figure is likely to double in 2004 when the Government expects to finalise a similar deal for the thirty-seven weekly flights to and from the United States. The current cost of providing the air marshals is said to be $18.5 million a year. That figure too will obviously increase as additional marshals are provided on additional flights.
It has been claimed that this is an unreasonable imposition on the vast majority of Australian taxpayers who do not take international flights.
4. Air marshals are likely to be placed on an increasing number of overseas flights and other forms of security put in place for maritime travel
Once it has been accepted that air marshals are a necessary part of national security it seems all but inevitable that they will ultimately be placed on all routes within and from Australia. The rational behind this is demonstrated in the argument put by Robert McClelland, the Opposition homeland security spokesperson.
Mr McClelland has claimed that unless the scheme were expanded, terrorists would be able to target flights that did not carry air marshals. 'To be effective, you've got to have them [marshals] on all the major routes,' he said. 'Otherwise, terrorists will just be avoiding Singapore and targeting other routes.' [The Australia-Singapore route was the only one carrying air marshals at the time Mr McClelland made these observations.]
Australia is now also committed to placing air marshals on designated flights to the United States in 2004.
Australia is also being pressed to meet the security demands of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which is acting on behalf of the United States.
Ships will have to submit security plans to the transport Department to register the ship crew and cargo and minimise the risk of infiltration by unauthorised personnel or cargo.
Ships wanting to enter ports in IMO member countries will have to provide crew and cargo manifests before departure from the country of origin and again when nearing the country of destination.
5. Over-reactions to terrorism are likely to lead to ever-greater reductions in personal freedoms
It has been claimed that the United States demand that air marshals be placed on international flights entering America is an over-reaction and is part of a series of impositions being put on foreign nationals travelling to the United States.
Another such supposed imposition is the decision to have foreign nationals visiting the United States for longer than 90 days and those needing special visas photographed and fingerprinted at air and seaports when entering and leaving the country.
A spokeswoman for the United States embassy in Canberra has stated that the changes would apply to all Australians on stays of longer than 90 days and to those who needed visas.
'The US visit program will operate in all 115 commercial international airports and in 14 major seaports served by cruise liners. Most travellers entering the US with visas will have inkless electronic scans taken of the right and left index fingers and will be photographed using a digital camera at the immigration inspection station,' the spokesperson stated.
Opposition to such initiatives has been put by Michael Pirie in a letter published in the Australian on January 6, 2004. Mr Pirie has written, 'Terrorism has been with us for centuries, and as long as one person has more than another, or believes in a different God, it will be with us for centuries to come.
Most countries have experienced terrorism. Britain and the IRA, Spain and the Basque separatists, Europe and the 1970s groups - Bader Meinhoff, Red Army Faction etcetera - the Middle East and a host of different groups. They all dealt with the terrorist threat as best they could and moved on.
But we now have the US fingerprinting tourists, ordering the rest of the world to deploy air marshals, demanding greater security on the high seas and banning in-coming flights due to some suspiciously named or husband-less passengers.'
Arguments in favour of having air marshals on certain overseas flights
1. International terrorism demands that appropriate security measures be put in place
United States Homeland Security officials remain concerned al Qaeda terrorists will hijack commercial airlines in the United States, as they did on September 11, 2001, and say the raised threat level will continue into the new year.
A similar point has been made by Australian Justice and Customs Minister, Chris Ellison, in relation to the need to ensure aircraft security. Mr Chris Ellison has said, 'It is vital in the current security environment that governments use all measures at their disposal to increase the security of the public and maintain public confidence in aviation.'
Mr Geoff Askew, Qantas's head of security, has observed, There is no doubt . . . that since the Australian Government's involvement in East Timor, the threat to Australian interests and Australian aviation interests from Islamic extremists has increased and is real.'
It has also been argued that the seizing of an aircraft puts many more people in danger than the passengers and crew. This point has been made in an editorial published in The Australian on December 31, 2004. The editorial states, 'As September 11 demonstrated, the lives of many more people than an aircraft's passengers can be at risk in a hijack.'
2. Measures have been taken to ensure that air marshals will not reduce air safety
It has been claimed that Australia's air marshals are carefully trained in how to manage threatening situations and how to discharge their weapons, when necessary, in a manner likely to cause the least risk possible to innocent passengers.
It has also been noted that air marshals are armed with ammunition suited to aircraft use. The 'frangible' bullets are designed to break up on impact with a solid object and so should not pierce the plane's skin.
Frangible bullets pre-date the September 11 hijackings and were developed for environmental reasons - they do not contain lead. The bullets are made from mixtures of powdered metals to produce a high-density material that acts in many ways like the lead bullet it replaces. Important differences mean the bullet disintegrates when it hits a hard surface and consequently does not ricochet.
Because the fragments do not ricochet the risk of accidental injury is reduced. Also, unlike dum-dum bullets, which also have a 'soft' casing, they do not expand on hitting a body, which aggravates wounds.
3. Air marshals on domestic flights have caused no disruptions
Air marshals or Air Security Officers were first placed on Australian domestic flights on December 31, 2001, in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States in that year.
Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison has claimed that air marshals have now flown thousands of kilometres on domestic routes without incident. 'It's provided great assurance for the travelling public that our skies are not only safe but secure,' he said. It has been suggested that this successful record makes it likely that the placing of air marshals on international flights leaving Australia will also cause no incident.
4. The cost of airline security is being shared with the airlines
There has been a cost sharing agreement arrived at between the federal Government and the airlines. The federal Government pays for the sky marshals, while their seats are paid for by Qantas for domestic flights and shared by the airline and the Government for flights to Singapore. Supporters of Australia's current air marshal arrangements see this as a fair sharing of the costs involved.
The Australian reiterated this position in an editorial published on January 5, 2004. The editorial stated, 'This split is a reasonable division between the Government, which is responsible for national security, and the carrier.'
Qantas chief executive, Geoff Dixon, has promised that the extra safety measures would not force passengers to pay more for airfares. 'We are subsidising an initiative of the Government's ... we have our own security ... we pay over $250 million a year to have that,' Mr Dixon said.
The Australian, however, has indicated that all parties involved, including airline passengers, should be prepared to pay a portion of the costs associated with national security. The newspaper summed up its position in this manner, 'We must accept no one gets off scot-free from the war against terror. The objective must be to share the burden among taxpayers, who must fund the federal Government's responsibility for national security, the states, individual industries, and users and consumers.'
5. Continued flights between the United States and the rest of the world, including Australia, will only occur if appropriate security measures are put in place
The Qantas agreement to place air marshals on US-bound flights followed a directive from American Homeland Security. The directive requires that all international air carriers carry trained and armed officers on designated flights to the United States to help counter terrorism. The United States has threatened to deny entry to carriers that fail to comply.
Under the new US directive, anti-terrorism officials can demand armed air marshals be placed on certain flights or refuse entry into United States airspace.
'Ultimately a denial of access is the leverage that you have,' Mr Ridge, the head of American Homeland Security, has said. 'These directives, effective immediately, are part of our ongoing effort to make air travel safe for Americans and visitors alike.'
Travel to the United States is important to Australia's aviation industry. Qantas operates thirty-four weekly flights to the United States (going up to thirty-seven in 2004) and has a code-share agreement for twenty-one weekly flights from the United States to Canadian cities.
Britain, previously opposed to armed air marshals on aircraft, will also comply with the United States directive. The British Airline Pilots Association issued a statement indicating that while it was still opposed to the decision, it had no choice but to comply.
It has been claimed that any refusal to fly with air marshals could further seriously disrupt flights to the United States and so harm the British air travel industry, which is still experiencing difficulties after a downturn in business following the September 11 2001 attacks. It seems likely that the Australian air travel industry would have similar concerns.
Further implications
The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), while acknowledging that air marshals may well be a political and economic necessity have maintained their reservations about the scheme.
BALPA has called for an international conference to discuss sky marshals and safety. To this point BALPA has secured an agreement with the British Transport Secretary that pilots should be in control of the aircraft at all times and should be told if sky marshals were on board.
The Australian Government's enthusiasm for the air marshal scheme and their willing compliance with the most recent American Homeland Security directive has meant that Qantas reservations about the air marshal scheme have been largely ignored. Negotiations between the Government and Qantas appear to have largely centred on how the scheme will be funded.
It is to be hoped that the Australian Government is as enthusiastic in its support of airport security and the gathering of accurate intelligence as it has been about the employment of air marshals. It is also to be hoped that unlike the apparent situation in the United States it ensghures that the quality of training received by Australian air marshals remains high.
Sources
The Age
26/12/03 page 1 news item by Robert Wainwright, 'Air marshals take their seats as terror alerts rise'
31/12/03 page 3, news item by Stathi Paxinos and Robert Wainwright, 'US forces guard on Qantas flights'
1/11/03 page 9, news item, 'Air space restricted over cities'
1/11/03 page 9, news item, 'Jets face grounding to avoid marshals'
2/1/04 page 8, letter from D. Fraser, 'Led by the nose'
The Australian
27/12/03 page 5, news item by Belinda Hickman and Samantha Maiden, 'Air marshals to fly on more routes'
31/12/03 page 8, editorial, 'Splitting the cost of air marshals'
2/1/04 page 11, comment (with cartoon) by Steve Creedy, 'Danger: this plane is heavily armed'
3/1/04 page 1, news item by John Kerin, 'US security deadline on our ships'
5/1/04 page 6, editorial, 'Fighting terror a cost for all'
The Herald Sun
25/12/03 page 13, news item by Jason Frenkel, 'Sky marshal plan hangs in limbo'
27/12/03 page 2, news item by Jason Frenkel, 'Las Vegas target theory in terror plot'