Nigeria fairly screened out?

After Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to crash a commercial flight over the US, the American administration increased already strenuous security measures.

Most noticeably, they demand that passengers hailing from a list of troubled nations are subject to more intensive screening through pat-downs and additional baggage scanning.

Those countries affected are:

Supposed “state sponsors of terrorism”: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

Plus: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen

The most curious name of this list is Nigeria. All the other listed countries have populations with active and armed anti-American movements. Indeed, (Cuba aside) they all have a history of exporting Islamic violence.

Nigeria, although wracked by an anti-Western oil insurgency and a long history of religious conflict, has never developed an international terrorist group as seen in the Middle East. But now, in Britain’s open Commonwealth and an increasingly integrated global economy, social contact and association is less rigid. Ironically, the US has established a strict list of rules at a time when national-identification has never been less relevant. Islamic terrorist are just as likely to come from Western nations with large Muslim populations – as the British “shoe bomber” Richard Reid demonstrated 2001.

The policy has also revealed an underlying threat for world security: The poor quality of security provision in developing nations. Those passengers taking connecting flights from developing nations would have passed through security levels that are slight and perhaps easily crossed with bribes. Nigeria, however, is not the only country with dubious security measures and limited resources to invest in border controls.

The former head of the British internal intelligence service, Dame Stella Rimmington noted that most terrorists travelled in first class and carried multiple passports. It is doubtful whether the additional security measures would reveal any of the more sophisticated assailants capable of delivering most damage. Terrorist could, on paper, hail from any country in the world.

An Islamic attack might originate from any country with any Muslim population, ranging from Sweden to Tanzania. Requiring the US authoritarians to effectively close its borders. Or at least, establish an expensive, time-consuming and demeaning security system.

The security services have long cited their public invisibility as an unfortunate. Claimed failed plots rarely win plaudits in open discussion. It is difficult to access the impact of events that never took place. Presumably, the more incompetent terrorists were those that are captured, so their ability to succeed is added to uncertainty. The heavy security present in all airports not only assures the public that activity, but also attempts to reduce anxieties.

Perhaps these additional steps may be a stage in a long-term increase in airport security?