Author: Phillip Knightley
Publication: The Independent, UK
Date: October 27, 2002
URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=346209
Introduction: Moscow, Washington,
Bali: we live in terror. But are we becoming wimps?
If you go to the opera you risk
being taken hostage. If you go on holiday you might be blown up. If you
stop for petrol you could be shot by a sniper. Open a letter - does it
contain anthrax? What's going on these days? Where will the next outrage
be? People feel a sense of unease and a loss of innocence. Safer and happier
times, they believe, are now gone for ever. But is life really more dangerous,
or are we becoming wimps?
At the height of the Cold War, even
the bitterest enemies of the Soviet Union had one good word to say about
the Communists. They were hot on law and order. Moscow was one of the safest
cities in the world, especially for foreign visitors. There were no muggers,
there was no street crime, and there was great civic pride. Only after
the collapse of the Soviet Union did the truth emerge: Moscow was actually
one of the world's more dangerous cities. Visitors thought it was safe
because the Communist authorities simply suppressed the crime statistics
that showed otherwise. It was all a matter of perception. People perceived
Moscow to be safe, therefore it was.
But can the reverse apply? Do we
now mistakenly see danger everywhere? The truth is that in the very aspects
of our life that seem to cause us the most unease, safety has improved
immeasurably. Most of our forebears did not live long enough to be worried
about the things we worry about because they suffered early deaths from
industrial accidents, poverty and disease. Is it that we now know more
about what is happening around us?
Some say yes, even those journalists
in part- responsible for reporting on events that stir our fears. Take
the American sniper story. The journalist Matthew Engel, who lives in sniper
territory, admits that he has twitched a little while walking in the open.
"Nevertheless, this week has been a classic case of an ongoing truth: that
newspapers distort the facts, that TV news distorts the facts utterly,
and the 24-hour non-stop-news distorts the facts utterly, totally and completely.
We don't mean to do it, guv. We don't lie. But the parameters under which
we operate just ensure that we mislead.''
Engel points out that the area in
which the sniper operated had a population of about four million. Thus,
if the sniper had shot someone every day for the next year, the chances
were still 10,000 to one in your favour. This fact was lost in a welter
of news about random death, and speculation about the sniper's identity
and motives.
It is a dilemma for the media that
remains unsolved. It can hardly ignore terrorist acts, even though to do
so would defeat one of the terrorists' main aims: publicity for their cause
and an advertisement for new recruits. But the way terrorists' acts are
presented - a drama with each episode crafted like a thriller and the lack
of a proper assessment of the real risk - causes alarm, concern and faulty
perceptions.
Out there in the rest of the world
there has been a perception over the past, say 25 years, that in Britain
we went around terrified of IRA bombs, race riots, car hi- jackers, train
crashes, rapists and child murderers. In fact, most of us were getting
on with the reality of our everyday lives. The fact is that more people
die on our roads every year than were killed during the entire history
of the Irish troubles. More people were killed in one recent car pile-up
in the fog in Wisconsin than by the sniper, but we didn't see that on the
news. As the Qantas pilot told his passengers as he approached Sydney airport:
"Folks, the safest part of your journey is over. The most dangerous is
about to begin. Drive carefully.''
People have an amazing ability to
cope with the direst of threats by finding comfort in the banal. On that
night, 40 years ago this weekend, when President Kennedy was waiting for
the Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev to decide whether there was going to
be a nuclear holocaust over the Cuban missile crisis, how did Kennedy spend
what could have been his last hours on this earth? He watched Audrey Hepburn
in Roman Holiday. If you look closely at the television footage of many
violent incidents you will almost certainly see in the background behind
the burning cars or off to the side from the stone- throwing youths, someone
going about their business, bringing home the bread, hanging out the washing.
Life goes on.
The point of terrorism is to interrupt
this normality, to convey the impression that evil is everywhere, that
it is capable of striking us at our most vulnerable point. The aim of a
terrorist act is to produce a public reaction disproportionate to the actual
injury caused. The sad truth is that because of the modern hunger for excitement,
such a reaction can almost be guaranteed. The Chechen terrorists in Moscow
need not have killed anyone to have grabbed the world's attention. The
dramatic nature of their initial act ensured that. Once the world was watching
and listening, the Chechens were able to put their case, and people begun
to ask: "Well, what is Russia doing in Chechnya? Why is the war still going
on?''
Governments have a divided attitude
to terrorism. Some leaders feel that a little fear out there in the streets
is not necessarily a bad thing. It can help enforce discipline, keep citizens
alert and patriotic and, when properly directed, it makes governing an
easier task. Intelligence services certainly believe that every country
needs a monster to confront. For the West, communism filled the role admirably
for many years. Its demise left services such as the CIA, FBI, MI6 and
MI5 floundering until terrorism came up on their screens, as George W Bush
put it. He knew there was an enemy out there somewhere for America to confront,
but until al-Qa'ida came along he did not know who it was. On the other
hand, terrorists attract attention.
This is why governments hate terrorist
acts. No matter what they do, they cannot win. The acts attract attention,
they can change public opinion, and they can influence government policy.
This is why Mrs Thatcher wanted to deny the IRA the "oxygen of publicity''
- a difficult thing to do in a democracy. And it's why many a government
would like to resolve terrorist situations away from the glare of television.
And, like the police in many a kidnapping case, it's why they want to reveal
the outcome only when it was all over. Instead they offer a devil's contract:
"You want to be safe from terrorism? We can probably manage that. But to
do so you will probably have to surrender a lot of those civil liberties
you keep going on about.''
The writer Susan Sontag says she
would not be surprised to see martial law in the United States if there
were to be another terrorist attack, because many of those Americans used
to feeling safe would be prepared to trade their liberty in order to feel
safe again.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary,
says freedom is not absolute, and there has to be a balance between freedom
and security. But who strikes that balance? And if, in the end, to defend
ourselves against terrorism, we have to change our way of life so radically
that it becomes unrecognisable from what it once was, doesn't that mean
that the terrorists have won? We can only take care, while recognising
what the real risks are. And if you don't smoke, don't get into a road
accident, and someone you know doesn't kill you, you'll probably make it
to a happy old age.
