US warns of impending terror attacks by Al Qaeda on the country

Producer: Melanie Yip
First broadcast: 27 May 04, Radio Singapore International

Top US officials have warned that the Al-Qaeda terror network may launch a new attack on the country.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, citing credible intelligence sources, said that Al Qaeda may be targeting the attacks on several high profile events, including the Democratic and Republican conventions in the US.

However, officials have yet to elevate the terror alert in the country.

Dr Paul Harris, of the Department of Politics at Lingnan University in Hong Kong told RSI's Melanie Yip, that raising terror alerts have often caused confusion among residents in the US.

PH: I think there is a great confusion on the part of the Americans about these (terror) alerts, and specifically, what they're supposed to do when the color changes. The problem with these alerts is that there is usually little information accompanying the warnings. People do not know what to do, they are only told to be more alert, to be more vigilant. And, arguably, what this does is make people a bit confused and frightened. People wonder if there is specific, credible information, as the government likes to say there is, why is this not revealed? We now know, from past experiences, even law enforcement officials are unsure about the precise nature of the warnings. When they complain about the warnings, naturally, Americans would as well.

What are the possible reasons for Al Qaeda's change of strategy to target high profile political conventions, rather than public monuments in the US?

PH: I'm not sure how much I believe, the information that is coming out of Washington. That is, you're saying all these things about Al Qaeda's strategies. But really, what you're talking about is what the US Attorney General, and US Government are saying about Al Qaeda's strategies. With all due respect to the professionals in the US government, there is a potential political taint to all of these. And the intelligence officials have, in the past, demonstrated their incompetence when it came to understanding terrorists and terrorism. I think we have to be very careful about this. But, it could be Al Qaeda, assuming this is true, is trying to send a message about democracy. Arguably, Americans are trying to spread the message of democracy, first into Iraq, and also other places. Perhaps this might be an Al Qaeda attack on the process of democracy, and democratic institutions. Of course, if there is a little bit of intelligence, or uncertainty on the part of the Attorney General and intelligence officials, they may want to make this a form of announcement to cover their backs, in the run up to the elections. Prior to 9/11, there were no warnings despite having credible intelligence information, so they don't want to repeat the mistake as it would be political suicide. Some of my American colleagues have suggested to me that announcing these kinds of warnings would allow the Attorney General to crackdown on political dissent in the United States during the political convention.

So you would feel that there is some justification to charges that the Bush Administration may be manipulating the terrorism warnings in the US?

PH: Now, (the charges) will be what you'll expect from the President's opponents. And possibly, what they said may be true. The President's approval ratings are dropping in almost every important area, like his handling of the economy, national security. However, his ratings with regard to the war against terror have yet to fall as much. By raising this issue once again, his Administration may get the upper hand. Quite frankly, we have to be suspicious about what comes from Attorney General, John Ashcroft because he is hardly the most reliable spokesperson for the Bush Administration.

Do you feel that the current terrorism warnings are meant as a diversion from the media frenzy over the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals?

PH: You know, one could draw such conclusions. I do not have any empirical support for that conclusion but it does make sense. Why, at this particular moment, reveal such information? And the Bush Administration has yet to answer that question. So it could be that it will be politically expedient to do it at this moment in time. If indeed, it is the conventions that are targeted, why not muster the resources in advance and then make the announcements at an appropriate time. But, we ought not to be too cynical, there is probably a lot of uncertainty on the part of the intelligence officials, and they have come to a decision that such an announcement needs to be made.