Ever since the period of the 1960s and plane hijackings,
terrorism has found
ways to attack the travel and tourism industry. Here are the themes of terrorism
during the last 40 years.
The 1960s and 1970s was the time of plane hijackings. In the 1960s, these
hijackings were often from the U.S. to Cuba and were not aimed at harming pas-
sengers. In the 1970s the model was modified and plane hijackings were now part
of terrorism. The purpose of 1970s actions (often committed by radical Muslim
Mid-Eastern groups) was loss of life plus property. During the 1970s the Munich
Olympic Games became the site of one of the most notorious terrorist attacks and
set a new standard for terrorism at major world events. The 1970s also saw attacks
at airports, where passengers were murdered for the sake of murder. The 1980s
also saw plane bombings such as bombs aboard both TWA (U.S.) and Air India
planes. The 1990s and the first part of the early years of the twentieth-first century
have seen terrorism increase in the following areas: attacks
against ground trans-
portation, bus and train bombings, attacks against major buildings, attempts at
mass murder through terrorism, and attacks against hotels.
Here is a partial list of places where terrorism has been launched against the
tourism industry within the last 10 years.
●
Bali
●
Casablanca
●
Israel
●
Kenya
●
Los Angeles
●
Mexico
●
Morocco
●
Peru
●
The Philippines.
These locales have nothing more in common than a successful tourism industry.
Students of tourism and its professionals have wondered what attracts terrorism to
tourism. Below are some of the reasons for this interaction. Tourism is intercon-
nected with transportation centers.
In all these cases the careful observer will note that terrorism has:
■
Sought to increase both economic and human damage
■
Become more severe in its attacks
■
Sought new
travel and tourism targets
■
Moved from the fringe to the mainstream.
Terrorists, having learned the lesson of mass media, have also tended now to seek
urban over rural areas. The use of urban areas is a good way to gain instant public-
ity and assure the greatest numbers of casualties. Attacks in cities mean that not
only are there direct victims, but also those who witness the attack become second-
ary (psychologically hurt) victims. Cities being centers of economic activity, urban
attacks have the advantage of greater economic destruction. Cities are also easy
places into which a terrorist can fade and often find a safe house among the terror-
ist group’s sympathizers. This analysis would lead one to believe that rural tourism
centers are thereby safer. Tourism, however, no
matter where it is located, acts as if
it were an urban center. For example, attacks on tourism centers almost instanta-
neously produce major news coverage (an example is the Bali bombings). In a like
Tourism, Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
42
H7898_Ch02.qxd 8/24/05 8:03 AM Page 42
manner, tourism is an economic engine and often assembles large numbers of peo-
ple even in rural fields (for example, outdoor music festivals such as Woodstock).
Traditionally, many tourism professionals have avoided addressing issues of
tourism security and tourism safety altogether. There has been a common feeling
among these professionals that visitors will wonder if too much security indicates
that they should be afraid and that even speaking about these subjects will frighten
customers. Thus, especially in the years prior to 2001,
the industry often took the
position that the less said about tourism security and safety the better. The terror-
ist attacks in New York City, Washington, DC, Bali, and Kenya have destroyed
more than many thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in property
value. The attacks also forced the travel industry to deal with a major travel paradigm
shift. This shift in travelers’ mindsets had been occurring prior to September 11;
however, these terrorist attacks, and the possibility of new attacks, have given the
travel and tourism a major wake-up call.
Unfortunately, too many in the travel and tourism industry were the last people
to realize that the shift was already under way. Put in its simplest of terms,
travel-
ers no longer fear tourism security but demand it. In the old travel industry para-
digm, security was a dark secret. Industry leaders rarely spoke about threats to
tourists in public fearing that such openness would scare away visitors. The com-
mon belief was that security was a necessary evil that one had to have, but that
security added nothing to the business’s bottom line. For this reason, tourism and
travel security were rarely publicized, never mentioned in marketing campaigns,
and underfunded, and its practitioners were often underpaid. The old paradigm led
to
poor security at airports, hotels, restaurants, and attractions. Security profes-
sionals who spoke of acts of terrorism, biochemical attacks, and crime were seen
as alarmist and asked to rephrase their warnings in ways that would be acceptable
for public consumption.
The public, however, was beginning to change its views. Even prior to the
September 11 attacks, there were multiple signs that the public was concerned
about and demanded good tourism security. Throughout the travel and tourism
industry, anecdotal evidence began to appear that tourism’s customers were choos-
ing locations and venues precisely because they were safe and secure.
Studies and
scholarly articles noted that security personnel were beginning to obtain some of
the tourism security training that was needed.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
