Frontiers of Fear by Ariane Chebel D'Appollonia

Author:Ariane Chebel D'Appollonia [D'Appollonia, Ariane Chebel]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Emigration & Immigration
ISBN: 9780801464386
Google: GVHIrTOrH2EC
Publisher: Cornell University Press
Published: 2012-03-15T04:27:33+00:00

Counterterrorism and the Sense of Insecurity

By linking terrorism and immigration, current counterterrorism policies foster the mistaken belief that measures such as limiting the number of immigrants will reduce the threat. Yet the actual increase of illegal immigration raises both the fears (of being attacked) and expectations (to be protected) of U.S. and European citizens who are drawn into supporting the spiraling effects of counterterrorism: more security measures generate more fears, which in turn increase the demand for further security measures. In the long term, this approach may damage the credibility of the authorities involved in the war on terror, undermining governmental legitimacy because a continuation of insecurity may be interpreted as a sign of incapacity and fuel new feelings of insecurity.

Effective antiterrorist campaigns can also, paradoxically, reinforce a sense of insecurity, as illustrated by the announcement in June 2002 that José Padilla, a U.S. citizen and alleged al-Qaeda associate, had been arrested while plotting to explode a “dirty bomb” in an American city. The public’s view of terrorism as a major problem for the country increased from 22 percent in May to 33 percent in June.57 By multiplying counterterrorist measures, policymakers generate high expectations. But the continuation of insecurity is interpreted as a sign of governmental incapacity and thus fuels an increasing feeling of insecurity. Meanwhile, by planting fear in the public (through, for example, the color-coded alarm), policymakers fuel a growing political distrust—as illustrated in May 2010 by the reaction of U.S. public opinion in the aftermath on the arrest of the failed Times Square bomber. Only 46 percent of American respondents believed at that time that the federal government was doing everything it could to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. More to the point, only 33 percent believed that the government was effective in preventing the bombing, while 49 percent considered that the government had been simply lucky.58 According to a Rasmussen Reports survey, 52 percent said the country is less safe today, up from 42 percent and the highest level measured over the prior three years.59 More important, 60 percent believed that terrorists would always find a way to commit further attacks.60

In assessing the evolution of public opinion in both the United States and Europe, this section outlines a series of basic findings that are often troublesome. First, it appears that the multiplication of antiterrorist measures and tactical operations increases the public’s concerns about the efficacy of the war on terror. In September 2007 the Center for American Progress Terrorism Index revealed that 84 percent of U.S. citizens did not believe that the United States was winning the war on terror, and more than 80 percent expected a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. Fully 91 percent said the world has become more dangerous for Americans and the United States, while only 2 percent believed the world was safer.61 A survey for the BBC found in December 2006 that 53 percent of the respondents believed the UK government was losing the war on terror, and 56 percent thought it was being lost by other Western governments.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.