Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

TRANSPORT: No Consensus on Air Marshals

Tito Drago

MADRID, Jan 6 2004 (IPS) - Opinions are divided over the United States government’s decision to require the presence of armed guards on selected international flights that cross into U.S. airspace, to prevent hijackings and terrorist attacks.

In Spain, parliamentary Deputy Victorino Mayoral of the opposition Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) told IPS that ”a realistic option would be to put police on flights, but without firearms, armed instead with other dissuasive elements, like aerosols containing paralysing gases.”

But the most important thing, he underlined, is to reinforce security on the ground before a flight takes off, because firearms on an airplane pose a grave risk.

France and Australia said they would accept Washington’s request. But French transport secretary Dominique Bussereau said his country would only deploy guards armed with weapons that would not damage the fuselage or cause massive injuries to passengers.

Since Dec. 23, France has been posting members of a special group of gendarmes, dressed in plain clothes, on flights from Paris to the United States.

Australian sky marshals carry special ammunition designed to break up without penetrating the wall of the aircraft, said officials from that country.

But in Spain, pilots – ”who understand better than anyone what happens, or could happen, on board,” as a pilot with Iberian airline commented to IPS – are opposed to the presence of armed guards on flights.

The president of the Spanish Union of Airline Pilots, Andoni Nieto, said he was ”absolutely opposed to bringing weapons on airplanes.” He added that if the Spanish government accepted the U.S. decision and began to deploy air marshals, several problems would immediately arise.

For example, agents would begin to work without special training on how to carry out their duties on airplanes in flight, said Nieto.

He also said Spain’s legislation would have to be modified, because it stipulates that the person ultimately responsible for an airplane in flight is the captain, ”and many Spanish pilots could refuse to fly with armed men on board.”

The Geneva-based International Air Transport Association (IATA), which groups more than 270 carriers in 180 countries, also criticised the measure, and stated the governments that establish such rules should pay for them.

”Our basic stance is that we do not want guns on board the aircraft, and we certainly don’t want the cockpit to be armed,” said IATA spokesman Anthony Concil.

The Sunday Times in Britain echoed U.S. warnings that terrorists were planning new attacks using hijacked airplanes.

The newspaper warned Sunday that there is a plan by the Al Qaeda terrorist network to hijack planes belonging to British Airways, Air France and AeroMéxico, to carry out attacks similar to the ones staged on Sep. 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, D.C.

The U.S. government holds Al Qaeda, led by Saudi citizen Osama bin Laden, responsible for the Sep. 11 attacks.

The British government announced that it would put air marshals on some flights, although British Airways and British pilot unions have put up opposition.

Last week, two British Airways flights from London to Washington were cancelled after information was received from U.S. security agencies.

Italy is one of the countries that has not yet made a decision on the issue, because placing armed guards on flights would require the passage of new laws, said a spokesman for Italy’s Civil Aviation Authority.

In Argentina, Rogelio Cirigliano, the head of the country’s Association of Airline Pilots, told the Buenos Aires daily Clarín that ”It’s a dangerous decision.”

”When they tried to implement it after the Sep. 11 attacks, we unanimously rejected it, and we will do so again this time,” he said.

The Mexican Pilots Association, which has more than 3,000 members, also rejected the measure, according to spokesman Francisco Esquivelzeta.

The government of Spain, meanwhile, is reluctant to confront Washington, but would like to negotiate the terms under which the measure would be implemented.

Opposition parties and trade unions in Spain are opposed to posting armed sky marshals on flights.

The country’s flagship airline, Iberia, is awaiting a decision by the Interior Ministry, while the ministry is waiting for the results of meetings scheduled for Wednesday between Foreign Minister Ana Palacio and senior U.S. administration officials.

Dennis Murphy, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, warned that foreign airlines that do not agree to use air marshals when requested to do so could be refused entry into U.S. airspace or prohibited from landing in U.S. airports.

The directive announced on Dec. 29 by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge requires an armed guard aboard flights crossing into U.S. airspace in cases in which ”intelligence information leads to a specific concern about that airplane,” said Murphy.

Portugal’s civil aviation authority said it would not permit air marshals on Portuguese planes, and that it would instead cancel any flight seen as a terrorist threat.

Denmark and Sweden have also refused to deploy armed law enforcement officers on flights to the United States.

Sweden’s SAS Scandinavian Airlines said it would not use armed guards. Swedish Civil Aviation Administration spokesman Per Froeberg said the agency would prefer instead to cancel a flight if officials deemed there was a terrorist threat.

SAS pilots announced that they were absolutely opposed to the U.S. demand that armed guards be included on certain flights. Like pilots in Spain, they stressed the danger posed by the presence of armed individuals, even if they are law enforcement officers, on passenger flights.

A spokesman for the German airline Lufthansa said security agents have already been deployed on some of its domestic and international flights since the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, although he did not specify whether they were armed.

Thomas Cook, a major German-owned company which flies into the United States from Britain, said in a statement that ”If presented with a sky marshal on any of our routes, the flight would be cancelled.”

The British Air Line Pilots Association reported that it had signed an agreement with an important British airline, whose name was not divulged, on the terms that would govern the presence of armed marshals on flights to the United States.

Under the agreement, the captain would be told who the marshals were, and would be allowed to question them before take-off, and to contact them at any time during the flight. The agreement also clarifies that the captain would still be ultimately responsible for the flight.

In the meantime, Brazil is the only country that has taken reprisals against Washington’s order that foreign nationals from all countries except 27 – mainly European – nations are to be fingerprinted and photographed as they come into the United States via airports and seaports, in an effort to beef up border security.

Under an order issued by a federal judge in Brazil, which began to be applied last Friday, all U.S. citizens are to have their fingerprints and photographs taken as they arrive in that South American country.