“Module code:

POL 230
Registration no:
170198855
Title:

Why is security policy oriented around terrorism, when the statistical risk of
dying in a terrorist attack is so small?
Seminar Tutor:
Greg Stiles
Word count:
2010

☒I confirm that the material I have submitted is my own original work. Where material has
been used, I have stated the source(s) from which the information has been derived and the
extent to which I have made use of the work of others.

☒ I wish to indicate that I am a student with Specific Learning Difficulties. MARKER – Please
see: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ssid/disability/useful-info/yellow-stickers

Please retain 1.5 line spacing to facilitate the online marking and feedback process. Please leave
margins at 2cm and font as 12 point Arial.”
With over ten thousand terrorist attacks in 2017 1 terrorism is still less likely to kill than
other, less violent in the eyes of the population, ways such as diseases. This essay will
explain that, even if we live in a world with low statistical chance of dying in a terrorist
attack, the securitization of the concept that terrorism is made it possible to have
security policy oriented around it. The essay will elaborate as follows. First section will
look at what is securitization theory and how does it work, giving us the tools to
understand how a concept is moved from a regular policy issue into an extraordinary
one. Then we will look at how terrorism has been securitized and have made it possible
for civilian populations to accept this securitization and embrace the policy changes that
governments enacted to protect them. Lastly we link the act of securitization to the
media and what role does it play in the process.

In order to explain why we tailor security policy around terrorism it is first crucial to
understand the securitization theory. Buzan argues that securitization means taking an
issue beyond “the established rules of the game and frame the issue either as a special
kind of politics or as above politics”2 and thus presenting it as a threat, an existential
threat that requires “emergency measures outside the normal bounds of political
procedure”3. What this means it that often times when an issue arises in the state it is
up to the politicians and other agents such as the media, general population, to decide
where that issue is standing on the spectrum. This spectrum has three values,
nonpoliticized(where an issue is not part of the political debate), politicized(where an
issue is part of the political debate) and securitized(where an issue is framed as an
existential threat and warrants responses that are beyond normal political practice) .

To better understand this we shall use the example of HIV/AIDS and how countries
responded to that. At the dawn of the 21st century, although the disease was highly
politicized in a number of countries, it became increasingly obvious that some, for
example the US, were moving this issue into the security threat sphere. First we give
the example of Al Gore, as acting Vice President in January 2000, who argued in favor
1
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2018). Global Terrorism
Database . Retrieved from https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd , accessed on March 2019

2
Buzan, Barry (1998), Security: a New Framework for Analysis( Lynne Rienner)
3
Ibid.
of a more broad definition of security to comprise infectious diseases as well 4 and then
we see Secretary of State Colin Powell describing the HIV crisis in 2001 as a security
threat to the US5. These calls for measures made it possible for the UN to pass
Resolution 1308 which claimed that HIV/AIDS “poses a risk to stability, to national
security and to peacekeepers”6. This example shows us that securitization is a speech
act, where the actor that makes the security move tries to convince his audience of the
threat that looms large so the securitization move can be completed. Because both
Powell and Gore were important political actors, their spoken words about the issue of
HIV began the process of securitization.

Often times the referent object is the state in this situation, therefore securitizing an
issue is vital for the survival of the state. This is an important criterion for politicians as it
gives them enough bargaining power in relations with the general population to seek
emergency measures that might contradict freedoms and usual processes of politics
such as weighing in different options.

What underpins the securitization theory is the survivability of the referent object, where
referent object is defined as “that to which one can point and say it has to survive
therefore is necessary to...”7, nonetheless it is important to notice that issues can
become securitized if they are presented as such not necessarily if they have
threatening qualities. This is why some acts of securitization are successful and others
are not, because it is not just the threat that matters but the speech act that can frame
the issue as an existential threat to the referent object and as such securitizing it means
authorization of emergency measures to tackle that issue8.

Before we move on to the next section, which will explore the securitization of terrorism
in more depth, it is important to notice that this concept, terrorism, is not uncontested.

4
Susan Peterson, Human Security, National Security and Epidemic Disease, in HIV/AIDS and the Threat to National
and International Security, ed by Robert L. Ostergard, Jr, 2007, Palgrave Macmillan

5
Ibid
6
Colin, Mcinnes, HIV/AIDS and security, International Affairs, vol. 82, pp 315-326
7
C. Peoples, N. Vaughn-Williams(2017) Critical Security Studies: An introduction 2nd edition, Routledge
8
ibid
There are over 180 definitions for it, but for the purpose of this essay we will work with
the one found in the Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations: “ term
used to describe life threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-
appointed sub-state groups” 9. It is thus an act of violence that is meant to shock and
destabilize a population in order to persuade a government to concede to the demands
of the terrorists. It is an act of attacking the symbols of one’s culture, to hurt the identity
of the enemy, as Osama bin Laden recognized the symbolism of the September attacks
when he said the attacks real targets “were America’s icons of military and economic
power”10and not civilians per se.

In the next section then, we will take a closer look in what manner did terrorism become
securitized after September 2001. In his address to the nation following the 9/11
attacks, President Bush offers a prime example of a speech act meant to securitize
terrorism. The language he uses frames the attack not just as an act of terror that might
justify international response and criminal courts inquires, but rather he uses the term
attack in a military sense, justifying his declaration of war as seen in this quote:
“enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” 11. The whole speech
is constructed around the idea that war on terror is justified; extraordinary measures are
needed because this is not an ordinary political situation. The speech act was
successful as laws such as Patriot Act were enacted less than a month after the attacks
and support for those policies remained high years later, as this Gallup poll shows, with
more than a half of the respondents saying the administration has done “ about right” 12.
Moreover, the Bush Administration created the DHS (Department of Homeland
Security) to ensure better cooperation and prevention in the face of growing terrorist
threats, and while it was certainly welcomed by the intelligence community, there were
some issues with how politics changed after the creation of DHS. That is because the

9
Garret W Brown, Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Oxford Concise Dictionary Of Politics & International
Relations, 4th edn (Oxford University Press, 2018).
10
Steven W Hook, U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox Of World Power, 5th edn (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2017)
11
President Bush Addresses the Nation, The Washington Post, 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html??noredirect=on , accessed on March 2019
12
David W. Moore, Public Little Concerned About Patriot Act, Gallup(2003),
https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-patriot-act.aspx , accessed March 2019
“National Strategy” published in 2002 placed the US on a short-of-war stance13 and the
color coded Homeland Security Advisory System served as a daily reminder to the US
population of the war on terror14. This practice was contested as it was argued it bred a
sense of constant fear and insecurity, with the levels constantly staying on a high alert.
This led several analysts to believe there was a risk of “governing the population via a
politics of fear” 15and even though we cannot tell for sure if that was the case, we can
argue that the securitization of terrorism was effective in the aftermath of September
2001.

It is not sufficient to claim securitization, as politicians did, as that constitutes just the
security move, but it is equally important for the audience to accept that securitization.
Consequently, the media plays a vital role into this process and we will use examples to
show how the media helped to create and perpetuate this fear that ultimately led to
terrorism being the focus of security policy. One example of media power to help the
securitization process through conveying the message terrorists have is the TWA Flight
847 in 1985. During the crisis that spawned over a seventeen day period, the media
coverage was extensive, reaching almost 500 news segments. This process had the
effect of not only informing the audience but also breed a sense of fear, with a RAND
think thank study finding that in 1989 an American was as in much danger to be killed
by a terrorist as likely to be killed by a dog and yet almost a third of the respondents
said they “would refuse the opportunity to travel abroad because of the threat of
terrorism” 16.

Due to the increase in new media usage there is even more fear of terrorism when we
take into account how fast news travel nowadays. A terrorist attack in India, Pakistan or
Syria is no longer that far away as it once was, and the propaganda machine that
terrorist organizations use makes sure that the audience doesn’t stop thinking about
them17. This is an explanation (albeit not the only one) for why do people perceive

13
C. Peoples, N. Vaughn-Williams(2017) Critical Security Studies: An introduction 2nd edition, Routledge

14
Ibid
15
Ibid
16
Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
17
Ibid.
terrorism as the most prominent security threat today, even though we live in a world
where according to the Global Terrorism Database 2017 was the third year of decline in
terrorist attacks and the number of victims killed in such acts are on regress18.

Domestic terrorism, as seen in the cases of the Las Vegas shootings in 2017, or the
Christchurch attacks in 2019, perpetrated the sense of fear that populations feel in
regards to this security threat. Consequently, it is a mutual effort that the state does as
well, because when it securitizes an issue it needs to ensure that that issue is framed as
an existential threat. Therefor we can argue that this resembles a vicious circle, where
the terrorist attack starts a process that in turn would give the state more powers and
instill more fear in the population. The same population, due to its organic desire for
safety, would accept the securitization of that issue hoping for better protection, but fails
to see that the exact nature of this process breeds fear and nourishes even more
paranoia.

In conclusion, we have argued that even though statistically the risk of terrorism is still
low security policy is still oriented towards terrorism due to the process of securitization
that is has been undergoing. The essay firstly explained how the process works,
drawing from the writings of the Copenhagen School, explaining that in order for this
process to be valid it is important to convince the audience so that the issue is moved
successfully in the security area, rather than just politicize it. Moreover, we linked this
process to the aftermath of 9/11 and how the US responded to the attacks, claiming that
this was a prime example of securitization done by the Bush Administration. Lastly, we
explored the role of the media in swaying the public in the direction of security, by giving
terrorists a platform and also exposing the audience to the horrors of the attacks,
instilling fear and a desire to be protected no matter the cost.

18
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2018). Global Terrorism
Database . Retrieved from https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd, accessed on March 2019
Bibliography

Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. 1997. Security: A new framework for Analysis(Boulder,
Colo: Lynne Rienner)

Start.umd.edu. (2019). Global Terrorism Database. [online] Available at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd

[Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].

Hoffman, Bruce. 2006. Inside Terrorism, 2nd edn (New York: Colombia University Press)

Hook, Steven W. 2017. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power, 5th edn (Washington: CQ
Press)

Maclean, Ian, and Alistair McMillan. 2018. The concise Oxford dictionary of Politics and International
Relations, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Mcinnes, Colin. 2006. "HIV/AIDS and security", International Affairs, 82: 315-326 [accessed 27 March
2019]

Peoples, Columba, and Nick Vaughan-Williams. 2017. Critical Security Studies, 2nd edn (London:
Routledge)

Peterson, Susan. 2007. "Human Security, National Security and Epidemic Disease", in Robert L.
Ostergard Jr (ed.), HIV/AIDS and the Threat to National and International Security (Palgrave Macmillan)
[accessed 27 March 2019]

"President Bush Addresses the Nation". 2001. The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html??noredirect=on [accessed 27 March
2019]