Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "European Naivety or American Paranoia?"

European Naivety or American Paranoia?

Ebba Wiberg: Security threats are only as big as we make them. The counter-terrorism cooperation between the US and the European states suffer from the difference in attitude from the two sides of the Atlantic. This op-ed addresses whether it is better to be paranoid or naïve.

In 2005, as a young Swedish exchange student, I arrived in northern Kentucky. I was about to spend a year living abroad with an American family and attend a typical American high school. Cultural differences were of course expected, but the one thing that I quickly picked up on was that all the families in the neighborhood had stocked up on canned foods in their basements. This had come about after the events of 9/11 from the general understanding that terrorists could strike at any time, and apparently anywhere; even a small suburb smack in the middle of the US. The American government had, via a politics of fear, been able to make ordinary citizens start preparing for the worst.

In contrast to the US, the Europeans appear to have a quite different attitude towards the current security problems affecting the transatlantic relationship. I happened to spot Kurt Westergaard (a Danish cartoonist who caused a lot of controversy in 2005 when he depicted the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb on his turban), casually boarding a public train in Copenhagen. Perhaps he did have undetected and in that case very skilled body guards, but it also made me wonder, as a student of transatlantic relations, whether he was just representing the stereotypical European attitude towards the threats facing our Western communities. How could a man who is personally targeted by Islamic extremists walk so freely around his home town when ordinary Americans were saving up and preparing for possible future terrorist attacks? It raised the question of whether it is us Europeans being naïve, or the Americans being paranoid.

Security threats are only as big as we make them. Yes, terrorism is a threat to both the American and European societies. But the "enemy" looks different from the two sides of the Atlantic. In the US it is perceived that they are still superior to terrorism and therefore can, and should, be acting to prevent it. Their military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq both show attempts to tackle the threat. There has been very little proof however for the US succeeding in doing so, which might turn the argument to the US being naïve rather than Europe, thinking that terrorism actually is a security threat that they can address. True, Al Qaeda has been weakened, but at the same time Islamic radicalism has increased as anti-American feelings began to be established in the Middle East. In this way the wars have not stopped terrorist attacks, but on the contrary possibly increased the threat, both in practice and in the perception of ordinary citizens. The EU on the other hand would, if they could, probably try and play using the same tactics as the US. They do not have the necessary resources however, and lack a pooled sovereignty to use in providing proper protection. It could be referred to Robert Kagan's explanation that Europe is like a man carrying a knife that comes across a bear in the forest and sees the best option as to just stay put rather than attack. On the other hand, the US is a man carrying a rifle that meets the same bear but rather than staying put pulls the trigger and shoots.

The war in Afghanistan came about as a counter-terrorism measure, and as EU states decided to get involved they became targets as well, even if they only "carried a knife". Sweden did experience a suicide bomber in Stockholm this Christmas, and the reason given was that it was a response to the 500 troops deployed in Afghanistan. The US needs European involvement but the greater it becomes, the greater the threat will also be. It is clearly not as feared in Sweden as in the US however. My own family back home has not begun to stock up on food.

Terrorism is a clear threat, and Europeans might be slightly naïve, but mainly because they cannot afford to be afraid. Sweden might be able to slightly improve airport security, but they cannot declare war nor do much other than send peacekeeping missions to Afghanistan. When the suicide bomber struck in December 2010 there was not much Sweden could do to respond. Looking back at the London bombings and 9/11, two attacks on a much larger scale, the counter methods seemed just as difficult. How do you respond to an almost undetectable enemy?

The European states and the US are all affected on one level or another, and it is a choice whether to take extra precautions and be a bit paranoid such as I found the families in my neighborhood in the US to be, or to take each day as it comes and hope for the best. Personally I see the latter as the more comfortable option, but if I were American or personally affected it might be a different case. As long as it is a threat however, it cannot be ignored, and the clear message is that it is better to be doing something rather than nothing. Hopefully one day, the threat will begin to disappear.

Ebba Wiberg is a student at the University of Nottingham.

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

April 12, 2011

Rebecca Steglich, Lund University, Bronze Contributor (13)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for an interesting article. The US and the EU have indeed different approaches towards terrorism. However, I don't agree that Europeans are slightly naïve, because they cannot afford to be afraid. I do not think that Kurt Westergaard represents the stereotypical European attitude towards the threats facing our Western communities. He stands up for the freedom of expression and constitutes a rather extreme case. Moreover, he does have his bodyguards. Islamist terrorism is perceived as a big threat to most Member States and, especially with the suicide bombing attacks on London in 2005, anti-terrorism has become a high priority. Just because the EU has less of a military approach does not mean that Europeans are less afraid of terrorism. As mentioned, wars have not stopped terrorist attacks, but on the contrary possibly increased the threat. Thus, even if the EU had military capability, a military approach towards terrorism might still not be an option, as it has proven to be rather unsuccessful so far.

April 12, 2011

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (190)

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms. Wiberg,
Because you focus heavily on the stocking up of food in your article could you clarify how much food this family was storing? In general, Americans over buy food and stock up on canned food. This is common in most American homes and sometimes the amount stocked is enough to last for a year. This has nothing to do with terrorism. While some people still do fear terrorist attacks, most Americans go about their daily lives without any thought to this.
Fears of terrorism have been exaggerated in the United States but I don't think it stems from naivety.

April 13, 2011

Eva Maria Krockow, GIZ, Ghana, Platinum Contributor (209)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ms Wiberg,

I agree that the unconvential and asymmetric nature of warfare, which international terrorism could be described as, represents security threats that are very difficult to target. However, I would not consider the attempt of addressing these threats and the hope to diminish them as naive.

It is true that over the past ten years, Islamist terrorist incidents in the West have been on the increase and that military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have had largely detrimental effects. However, one should not neglect the fact that many incidents have been prevented through timely action of national intelligence services.

In my opinion, the best way to address the threat is to continue using national and international intelligence, whilst strenghtening cultural relations work in Muslim countries and engaging with the regional populations within an interactive dialogue. It is important to refrain from an attempt to promote the own culture and to place the emphasis on achieving mutual understanding - otherwise these efforts could be understood as cultural imperialism (commonly associated with the US' cultural relations) and have the opposite effect.

April 17, 2011

Erik Tropp, University College London, Bronze Contributor (12)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for a great article. I think you highlight a couple of interesting themes.

Among others, the two contrasting ways Europe and the US seem to be dealing with the issue of terrorism is discussed. Differences over the Global War on Terror, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a story probably familiar to most. But one of the things you mention caught my eye:

"The EU on the other hand would, if they could, probably try and play using the same tactics as the US. They do not have the necessary resources however, and lack a pooled sovereignty to use in providing proper protection. It could be referred to Robert Kagan's explanation that Europe is like a man carrying a knife that comes across a bear in the forest and sees the best option as to just stay put rather than attack. On the other hand, the US is a man carrying a rifle that meets the same bear but rather than staying put pulls the trigger and shoots."

To me this reads out as the old "if you have a hammer everything starts to look like nails". And you seem to be arguing that the EU would like a hammer of its own. I am not entirely convinced that the EU is sure it wants this, but nonetheless the point you are making serves to underline something I believe is important.

There seems to be a general perception that Europeans are more naive than Americans, less prepared to 'face reality' or to realize that Europe is not the safe 'paradise' (in Kagan's own words if I am not mistaken?) it wishes to believe it is. While it is easy to read this as an "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus"-kind of argument (see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.00320/abstract ), the fact that Europe consistently pursues more 'civilian' policies than the US does seems to correspond at least partially to such stereotyping.

However, aside from the fact that a Martian/Venutian dichotomy obscures other significant policy patterns - for example the explicitly Atlanticist orientation of countries such as the UK and Poland, or how the Libyan intervention is unfolding - it presupposes that Europe wants to or ought to have more military capabilities, because in the nasty and harsh world we are ostensibly living in, being Venus is being naive, vulnerable.

I would argue that increasing the military capabilities of the EU is not such a straightforward matter (terrorism is a threat, therefore we ought to consider arming ourselves). Instead, getting our own hammer could change the way the EU sees the world - nails everywhere - and how the world sees the EU - potentially as an increasingly militaristic and potentially threatening power. This would obviously have consequences.

April 21, 2011

Niina Nykänen, University College London, Bronze Contributor (13)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ms Wiberg,

thank you for your interesting contribution. Naivety or paranoia aside, I think the theme of perceptions of threat is very interesting and agree with you that "[S]ecurity threats are only as big as we make them". Of course, the threat of terrorism should not be underestimated, especially because the franchised nature of al Qaeda enables its wide spread. Still, it does not help much for the ordinary person to panic about a potential car bomb on the streets of either European or American cities.

Although the attacks of September 11 were horrific in themselves, I believe that much of the American paranoia you described may well be explained by the differing media cultures between the United States and Europe. As I have heard and read, the 24 hour channels were filled with shocking witness stories, not to mention the videos of the second plane flying to the World Trade Center, which must have seeded the American paranoia for decades to come. Furthermore, the September 11 attacks exploited the very elements of the society, from airport security to the intelligence service. The 2005 attacks in London (and of course, the Stockholm car bomb as well) were different in this sense, for the security of the underground passengers was not guaranteed in any way and could not, therefore, create further distrust on the system.

June 9, 2011

Amarjyoti Acharya

I like this comment! What's this?

When we have a hammer & everything seem like nails, then we need to read more romantic novels or take more cold showers. But the more pertinent issue remains over socialization without that being an admissible excuse of the wooden leg syndrome. Crime & terror are closely related in their mindsets. The correct reading of our social realities are as crucial in combating crime & terror as the crime-terror networks find it crucial: in infiltrating our societies and in their sustained existences in democratic & free societies. The reversal or negative socialization in democratic & free societies remain the strategic objective of both crime & terror. The war of attrition is also psychological as it is material & political, and crime & terror seem well aware of that. We need to be as aware of those dimensions as we try to be of the more direct violences of crime & terror. Terrorism is not merely limited to a direct act of violence. It is also as much about how they affect the ordinary lives in free & democratic societies. The free & democratic societies remain the target group of much in the realm of international crime & terror. It is easier to combat the corrosive nature of crime & terror when we become more self-aware, as free democratic societies, over and about the meanings of such terms when we think about ourselves as well as crime & terrorism.

February 19, 2012

Susann Offenmüller, War Studies Department, King's College London, (2)

I like this comment! What's this?

How we - as individuals learning from any kind of media and socialization, or as members of groups (nations, ethnic groups, etc.) that somehow find their own criteria and dynamics of evaluating facts and processes - how "we", then, measure "threat" is quite an important question.
I totally agree with the thesis that "(se)curity threats are only as big as we make them." However, I think that describing someone's understanding as naive or paranoid may be rhetorically useful but already includes the own assessment of an assessment.
In addition, it is difficult to put a nation's people and their political leaders in one category, because they have totally different access to information and, most probably, divergent interests and aims at stake. Hence, comparing U.S. citizens stocking up food and the EU on the other hand that lacks resources to be as "paranoid" as North American people may lead to wrong conclusions. People, the media, and socialization is one topic to investigate in; the political leadership's assessment of actual or potential enemies is another matter.

So what is the article telling us? Yes, there are potentially important differences in how individuals and groups with different contexts measure threats. One could add that the threat of international terrorism is most likely to be real. However, that is not neccessarily a problem but a source of a deeper understanding what kind of threat we are facing today, in Europe as well as in the United States. The crucial point here is building up a constructive dialogue. Talking about a "threat" already makes the phenomenon less threatened.
As academics, journalists or politicans we should try to get people to talk about their fears and their means to meet those fears. Far away from being "naive" or "paranoid", people may have already found individual solutions that can be used in a wider international context.

Regards,

Susann Offenmüller