See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247478389

Tourism and the Globalisation of Fear: Analysing the Politics of Risk and
(in)Security in Global Travel

Article  in  Tourism and Hospitality Research · November 2006

DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050028

CITATIONS READS

109 1,562

1 author:

Raoul V. Bianchi
University of East London
28 PUBLICATIONS   980 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Current View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raoul V. Bianchi on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 www.palgrave-journals.com/thr
Tourism and the globalisation of fear:
Analysing the politics of risk and
(in)security in global travel
Raoul Bianchi
Received (in revised form): 6th June, 2006
International Institute for Culture Tourism and Development, London Metropolitan University, Stapleton
House, 277-281 Holloway Road, London N7 8HN, UK
Tel: 020 7133 3308; Fax: 020 71333 3082; E-mail: r.bianchir@londonmet.ac.uk; Website: http://www.
londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iictd/
Raoul Bianchi is senior research fellow in the
International Institute for Culture Tourism and
Development at London Metropolitan Univer-
sity. He specialises in the sociology and anthro-
pology of tourism development and heritage
and has a particular interest in the politics of
tourism, the international political economy of
tourism, and the cultural politics of heritage.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: international tourism, geopolitics,
terrorism, security, freedom
International tourism represents the apotheosis of
consumer capitalism and Western modernity, based
on an apparently seamless harmony between the
free movement of people, merchandise and capital.
However, as the growing insecurities engendered by
the globalisation of terrorism and military interven-
tionism, as well as targeted attacks on foreign tour-
ists in certain parts of the world illustrate, the liberal
calculus of unhindered mobility, political stability
and the unfettered expansion of the market, which
underpins the ‘right’ to travel, is, however, increas-
ingly mediated by heightened concerns of risk and
security. This paper will examine how the geopol-
itics of security and the neo-liberal expansion of the
global market have begun to radically reshape the
parameters of mobility and the environments in
which tourism operates. In doing so, it analyses the
manner in which international tourism has become
64 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
intertwined with restricted notions of freedom asso-
ciated with the intensification of market relations
and consumerism upon which the expansion of
contemporary tourist mobilities often depends.
Tourism and Hospitality Research (2007) 7, 64–74.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050028
INTRODUCTION
In a world of hyper-mobile capital, instantaneous
communications and increasingly the extensive
movement of people, global tourism is an
ambivalent phenomenon that encapsulates the
contradictory forces of mobility and freedom
on the one hand, and, immobility and disen-
franchisement, on the other. As the recent
attacks against tourism in places as diverse as
Morocco,Tunisia, Kenya and Indonesia demon-
strate, the ‘right’ to travel and the liberal concep-
tion of freedom which underpins these rights,
have increasingly become mediated by height-
ened concerns of risk and security. These in
turn have been accompanied by unprecedented
levels of surveillance and targeted restrictions
on mobility and passenger profiling.
With the rise of industrial mass tourism,
technological advances in aircraft safety and the
accompanying period of post-war stability in
which tourism thrived, it very much seemed
that tourism and tourists had for the most part
liberated themselves from risk. More recently
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00

of the Cold War was supposed to bring about
the worldwide embrace of the capitalist ‘free
market’ and liberal democracy (Fukuyama,
1989). Politically motivated attacks on tourists
together with the 2004 tsunami disaster in the
Indian Ocean, however, give pause for reflec-
tion where the relationship between tourism,
risk and security is concerned, as well as the
relations of power which structure the distribu-
tion of risk and (in)security among mobile/
immobile populations. The current global
conjuncture thus presents a unique opportunity
to interrogate the relations of power and ideo-
logical frameworks which structure and influ-
ence public discourse on tourism.
This paper seeks thus to reflect upon the rela-
tionship between tourism, the freedom to travel
and the geopolitics of security. In this regard, it
also represents a critique of the ‘normative’
approach prevalent in tourism studies whereby
tourism is conceived as a phenomenon that is
separate from and antithetical to ‘conflict’ (Richter
and Waugh, 1986; Hall and O’Sullivan, 1996;
Smith, 1998). It thus challenges or rather tran-
scends the narrow model which envisages peace
and security as necessary preconditions for
tourism (cf. Pizam and Mansfeld, 1996), as well
as, the argument that tourism is in itself an intrinsic
force for peace (D’Amore, 1988). Rather, in
contrast to the ‘crisis management’ school of
tourism studies which views the state as a ‘neutral’
entity whose role it is to ensure the safety of
tourists, I will argue that state power and hege-
monic practices, as well as tourism, shape the
discourses of global (in)security and contribute to
the very conditions of global instability which
ostensibly pose a threat to tourism itself.
TOURISM, FREEDOM AND THE
MARKET
The manifold experiences, motivations, pleasures
and desires that are encapsulated by tourism
cannot be reduced to the prosaic act of consump-
tion (Inglis, 2000: 2). Not only have different forms
of travel become markers of status (cf. Munt,
1994), generating new and diverse currencies of
value for those with the economic wherewithal
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
Bianchi
and political freedom to travel, mobility as a
whole can be seen as a marker of privilege and
power (Castells, 1996), or indeed citizenship
(Urry, 2000), while on the other hand immobility
has increasingly become a sign of deprivation. For
Bauman (1998: 96) the immobile majority for
whom mobility is either experienced as coercion
or is not experienced at all, can be seen as ‘flawed
consumers’ who contribute nothing to ‘the pros-
perity of an economy turned into a tourist
industry’. Indeed, a certain culture or indeed
cultures of mobility have become embedded
within Westernised, advanced capitalist societies,
to the extent that tourism is envisaged as both
ubiquitous and necessary in a globalising world
of mobile consumers:
‘One is entitled to travel since it is an essen-
tial part of one’s life. Cultures become so
mobile that contemporary citizens (not just
Americans!) are thought to possess the right
to pass over and into other places and other
cultures’. (Urry, 2002: 157)
International tourism is underpinned by an
implicit, and often, explicit belief in the sanctity
of the ‘free’ market and ‘open’ borders (for tour-
ists).This is also reflected in the policy discourses
of international organisations such as the UN
World Tourism Organisation and the World
Travel and Tourism Council, both of which
enthusiastically promote the opening of new
markets and de-regulation of corporate enter-
prise, as well as the inalienable right to travel.
This liberalised trading environment is
shaped by a ‘negative’ conception of freedom
in which freedom, or rather ‘liberty’, is defined
as the absence of interference in the pursuit of
one’s goals (cf. Berlin, 1969). In the context of
tourism it can be seen to represent the self-
realisation of one’s desires, identities, etc through
travel, free from politically motivated impedi-
ments. The direct association between travel,
freedom and consumption has arguably reached
its zenith under the contemporary conditions
of neo-liberal capitalism. Even attempts to
boycott tourism due to the existence of clear
links between human rights abuses and the
Vol. 7, 1, 64–74 Tourism and Hospitality Research 65
 Tourism and the globalisation of fear
tourism industry as in Burma, are seen as an
attack on ‘our’ fundamental freedom to travel
(Birkett, 2000). The relationship between
tourism and freedom have been stretched even
further through the suggestion (by Birkett and
others, including Tony Wheeler, the owner of
the Lonely Planet guides) that tourism can act
as a force for democratisation if allowed to prosper
in dictatorial states! While tourists have indeed
borne witness to local political violence and
even lent assistance to pro-democracy activists
in certain circumstances, as occurred in Tibet
in October 1987 (Schwartz, 1991),1 or indeed
to participate in what is often referred to as
‘justice tourism’ (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006),
there is little evidence to suggest that the influ-
ence of tourism on processes of democratisa-
tion and long-term political change is anything
other than marginal.
Enshrined within this view is a liberal
discourse of ‘tourism as freedom’ which posits
an equivalence between the struggle over access
to resources and perhaps political autonomy,
and, the expansion of the consumerism and the
capitalist free market, which may of course
involve the expropriation of resources with the
help of state power. The association of freedom
solely with the unencumbered right to consume
(peoples, places and their cultures), and to use
and dispose of ‘productive assets’ (including
labour), negates the need to comprehend the
‘positive’, or rather, ‘capacity freedoms’ which
are regulated by the prevailing distribution of
resources and power in any given social context.
Thus, ‘Capacity-freedom presupposes liberty.
But liberty does not presuppose capacity
freedom’ (Levine, 1988: 22).
Although travel is not a recent phenomenon,
as Cassen’s (1994) lively historical account
demonstrates, nor is it exclusively rooted in
European societies. For centuries the ritual
obligations of travel and hospitality have been
associated with the pilgrimage to Mecca, or
Hajj, among Muslims (Aziz, 2001). Dramatic
advances in transport technology since the
Second World War have, however, made possible
the integration of a geographically dispersed
66 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
network of places into an international tourism
system under the aegis of integrated, transna-
tional tourism corporations, based predomi-
nantly in the metropolitan capitalist states
(Clancy, 1998). It could be argued that interna-
tional tourism represents the apotheosis of a
quintessential ‘Western’ modernity, based on a
seamless harmony between the free movement
of people (in theory), goods and capital (cf.
Brackenbury, 2002). Neo-liberal policy-makers
and their corporate allies, constantly nourish a
discourse in which the privatised form of indi-
vidual mobility epitomised by tourism, is equated
with freedom, and put forward as a means of
nurturing cultural exchange, peace and pros-
perity (WTTC, 2003). As the global economy
becomes increasingly dominated by trade in
services, particularly in Europe and North
America, rather than manufactured goods,
‘freedom of travel [quite literally] is freedom of
trade’ (O’Byrne, 2001: 409).The constant expan-
sion of global tourism thus invites the consumer/
tourist into the belief in the absolute freedom
of choice among a bewildering choice of places
to consume, which may however, involve the
incorporation of further ecological and cultural
assets into the global circuits of capital.
TOURISM AND THE SECURITY OF
MOBILITY
The assumption that ‘we’ have a right to travel
anywhere was poignantly expressed in this state-
ment by former British Foreign Secretary Ernest
Bevin, who remarked that the principal aim of
his foreign policy was to ‘grapple with the whole
problem of passports and visas’, so that he could
‘go down to Victoria Station, get a railway ticket,
and go where the hell I liked without a passport
or anything else (quoted in Pinder, 2001: 102).
States are, however, engaged in the promotion
of certain types of mobility (ie tourism) while
simultaneously being threatened by others (eg
‘illegal’ immigrants) (Phipps, 1999: 76). Indeed,
as Bach (2003: 227) reminds us:
‘The first action that governments typically
take when faced with a crisis is to close their
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00

borders. States seem intent on gaining secu-
rity by stopping the world from moving’
Tourists are engaged in a constant quest for
novelty, excitement and adventure while simul-
taneously enjoying the security of unhindered
mobility upon which the realisation of the
former ultimately depends. Thus, it soon
becomes apparent that the freedom of mobility
and right to travel are shaped by specific
discourses and facilitated by structures of power
which ascribe different values to distinct cate-
gories of mobility (tourist, refugee, migrant,
etc). The ability to travel around the world for
pleasure and in relative safety is a relatively
recent phenomenon.2 Travel has always involved
some form of ‘ordeal’ (test of character) as well
as an element of danger (Leed, 1991: 5–6).
Although, until recently this was more likely
to be related to crime rather than acts of polit-
ical violence (cf. Richter and Waugh, 1986:
231). Leaving aside, for the moment, the
complex and ideologically riven exercise of
defining ‘terrorism’, Hall and O’Sullivan (1996:
115) remind us, that politically motivated
violence against tourists is a distinctly modern
phenomenon which has grown in tandem with
the internationalisation of tourism and, the
growth of the global communications media.
Paradoxically, the affluent are more shielded
from violence and disaster than ever, while
being simultaneously more aware of such events
as a result of the 24 hours saturation media
coverage which usually accompanies them
(Lisle, 2006).
The heightened and arguably selective
media focus on the global dangers associated
with terrorism has been partly driven by the
rise of a veritable industry of media pundits
— particularly since the events of 11th
September, 2001 — which itself has contrib-
uted to the sense of perpetual insecurity and
an exaggerated climate of fear (see Toolis,
2004). According to Mike Davis, the globalisa-
tion of fear and accompanying securitisation
of politics, reflects ‘the quest for the bourgeois
utopia of a totally calculable and safe environ-
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
Bianchi
ment’ (2001: 41) and thus has contributed to
the very conditions of insecurity which
existing policies of security (‘war on terror’,
etc) are arguably supposed to prevent. This is
manifest by the proliferation of ‘discrete tech-
nologies of surveillance’ which pervade the
Americanised metropolis and security meas-
ures since 11th September in the US and
indeed the UK (Goodrich, 2002; Russell,
2003). Davis goes on to criticise ‘media-
conjured scares’ (in the US) for not only exag-
gerating such fears but for diverting attention
away from the urgent need to reform the very
real conditions of inequality which nurture
social deprivation.3 Much the same can be
said of impoverished communities living in
popular tourist destinations and resort areas in
poorer countries.
Although it is fair to say that the nature of
risk has changed in so far as tourists have
increasingly become the specific target of
‘terrorist’ violence, it is also important to
emphasise that we are living in an unprece-
dented era of global stability in terms of the
incidence of armed conflict worldwide (see
Harbom and Wallensteen, 2005; Mack, 2005)4.
A recent publication by the US State Depart-
ment (2004) suggests that the total number of
international terrorist attacks in 2003 (190) was
the lowest since 1969. While this report has
been criticised for being used to justify US
success in the ‘war on terror’ and therefore
excluding attacks committed by states and
against off-duty US soldiers in Iraq, its findings
were, however, consistent with those of other
reports (Mack, 2005: 43). Despite new data
published in 2005 suggesting that there had in
fact been a significant increase in international
terrorist attacks between 2003 and 2004, this
was largely due to political disturbances in
South Asia (Kashmir) and the events in Iraq.
Indeed, what most sources show is that despite
the high profile nature of ‘terrorist’ attacks on
tourists the scale of these is lower than those
for ‘spectacular’ events (WTC attacks on 11th
September, 2001) simultaneous bombing of US
Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in
Vol. 7, 1, 64–74 Tourism and Hospitality Research 67
 Tourism and the globalisation of fear
1998). Moroever, the victims are predominantly
local civilians and/or soldiers, diplomats and
others working in conflict areas (aid workers,
journalists, etc) and indeed, domestic tourists.
Notwithstanding the significant minority of
modern tourists who actively seek some form
of attenuated risk in the form of adventure travel
(Cater, 2006),5 or what has been described as
‘terror tours’ (Lisle, 2006), one could argue that
most tourists are in fact risk averse. In particular,
this applies to members of ‘ethnic minority’
communities, in this case the UK’s Black Afro-
Caribbean population, whose perceived and
actual experiences of racism mitigate their desire
to travel to particular places (Stephenson, 2004).
Even in the supposedly ‘safe’ confines of the
European Union, black and other ethnic
minority tourists are subject to racial harassment,
extra security searches and rude behaviour
directed at their person, which their white coun-
terparts for the most part do not experience let
alone are even aware of. The events of 11th
September and ‘war on terror’ have only added
to the restrictions, harassment and problems
faced by non-white travellers, particularly those
deemed to be of ‘Middle-Eastern’ origin. This
has entailed the wholesale conversion of minority
ethnic peoples who had long been resident inside
Europe, into threatening ‘Others’ and terror
suspects (Fekete, 2004: 4). Nevertheless, Mansoor
(2002) reminds us that racial profiling and
uncomfortable interrogation at US points of
entry and airports did not commence on 12th
September, 2001.
Thus, while places such as hotels, motels and
airports may signify a liberating sense of
‘freedom’ and ‘cosmopolitanism’ for some,
where the boundaries of nationality are tempo-
rarily suspended the geographies of travel
remain striated by gender, sexuality, ethnicity,
class and increasingly, religion. The airport, in
tandem with other points of entry, frontiers and
border-crossing points (eg Sangatte and the
Euro-Tunnel) is an important locus of surveil-
lance and filter, enabling the passage of those
who are eligible to travel and/or who are to
be granted the privilege of acceptable ‘guests’,
68 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
while screening out the ‘undesirable’, the ‘bogus’
and the ‘dangerous’ (Lyon, 2003: 123–124). A
crucial instrument in the regulation, and at
times restriction, of inter-state mobility is of
course the passport. The passport constitutes
both a symbol of nationality as well as a polit-
ical instrument that both signifies and regulates
the boundaries between tourists and non-tour-
ists, insiders and outsiders, and ultimately, citi-
zens and non-citizens (O’Byrne, 2001). Not
only are passports being converted into ever
more sophisticated tools of surveillance and the
regulation of mobility using the latest tech-
nology (bio-metrics), possession of a passport
form a European or ‘Western’ country does not,
however, necessarily guarantee safe passage for
its holders if your ethnicity is ‘in question’ (see
Fekete, 2004). This may also be the case should
your nationality carry a certain value for those
on the ground who may seek to take tourists
as hostages (Phipps, 1999: 85). It is therefore to
the relationship between tourism and the
geopolitics of security that the remainder of
the paper will focus.
PROTECTION FROM WHOM, SECURITY
FOR WHOM?
Despite acts of political violence directed at or
which claim the lives of tourists, organisations
such as the UN World Tourism Organisation
and in particular the International Institute for
Peace Through Tourism (IIPT) continue to
promote the view that tourism is a force for
peace and inter-cultural understanding (cf.
D’Amore, 1988). There is some truth in this
statement, given the range of activities that can
be classified as ‘tourism’; however, such plati-
tudes often belie the extent to which tourism
can be implicated in the appropriation, enclo-
sure and degradation of resources upon which
local peoples depend upon for their survival,
and/or, ignore the conditions of radical insecurity
which afflicts the populations of destination
zones. Recently, this was made evident by the
promotion of an ‘Abrahamic Faith Tour’ by the
IIPT for the autumn of 2006.This tour involved
visits to historic and sacred sites in Jordan and
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00

Israel [sic] but failed to mention that East Jeru-
salem and its environs, which are home to many
historic sites and sacred shrines (eg Rachel’s
Tomb, Bethlehem), have been annexed by the
Israeli authorities since 1967. Moreover, the
‘sons and daughters of Abraham’ who live in
the West Bank and Gaza are all but prohibited
from visiting these places due to the Israeli
occupation and its complex architecture of
security (including roads, check-points, fences,
and the ‘separation wall’).
Tourism analysts have consistently empha-
sised the fact that tourists are particularly
susceptible to perceived security threats related
to crime (Pizam and Mansfeld, 1996; Brunt et
al., 2000), political instability and violence (Hall
and O’Sullivan, 1996; Sonmez, 1998), health
risks (eg SARs, HIV/AIDS) and natural disas-
ters (2004 tsunami, earthquakes). As a result,
they are easily deterred from visiting a partic-
ular destination in response to both perceived
levels of risk as well as high-profile disasters/
attacks. Given recent attacks on tourists in
conjunction with the new politics of global
security enshrined in the ‘War on Terror’, much
has been made of the increasing levels of risk
and uncertainty faced by (Western) tourists.
Implicit within this discourse of ‘risk’ and ‘secu-
rity’ associated with tourism, however, lies an
unspoken assumption in which the ‘tourist’ is
by definition, always ‘innocent of the implica-
tions of geopolitics’ (Phipps, 1999: 74). While
at first it may appear absurd to even question
this notion, it is pertinent to ask, at what point
does tourism/tourists become implicated in the
unequal relations of power and structures of
economic development which may play a
significant part in the long-term structural
‘violence’ of unemployment, poverty and
hunger generated by these inequalities? This is
not to suggest that pre-meditated acts of
violence against tourists are justified under any
circumstances, rather, that the assumption of
the tourist’s unquestioned innocence implies
that the phenomenon of tourism itself is
somehow suspended above or external to the
machinations of state power and geopolitics.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
Bianchi
To some extent travel serves to remove the
protective veil of modernity that shields most
tourists from the day-to-day insecurity that
afflicts the lives of many inhabitants in poorer
states and destinations. The reasons why tourists
may become ‘legitimate’ targets in the eyes of
the antagonists has been amply discussed in the
literature (Richter and Waugh, 1986; Hall and
O’Sullivan, 1996; Sonmez, 1998). It is often seen
to be related to local animosity among certain
conservative/religious groups towards the ‘West-
ernised’ culture of tourists, although more often
than not, it is due to the elevated ‘exchange
value’ of tourists in a highly mediatised global
economy, who thus become ‘worthwhile’ targets
for kidnappings (Phipps, 1999: 84). Often they
do not constitute attacks on tourism itself, but
rather they are designed to highlight internal
injustices and/or to damage local tourism econ-
omies upon which the host state is dependent,
as in the case of Spain (ETA) and Turkey (Kurdish
separatists) (Richter, 2001: 51). In his analysis of
the 2002 Bali Bombings, Hitchcock (2005)
emphasises that not only were many of the
victims in fact Muslims (as indeed were many
of the victims of the hotel bombings in Amman,
Jordan, 9th November, 2005), but also that the
perpetrators had specifically set out to kill
Westerners/Christians in general (as opposed to
tourists) who are seen to be associated with
attacks on Muslims. Indeed, the recent attacks
on tourists by so-called radical Islamist organisa-
tions in Indonesia, North Africa and Jordan
suggests that acts of political violence against
tourists have become altogether more indiscrim-
inate, which partly explains the heightened sense
of fear felt by tourists. On the other hand, they
must be seen within the context of a new global
climate of security politics generated and
sustained by the ‘war on terror’ and in which
tourism and indeed the regulation of mobilities
has become increasingly intertwined with global
geopolitics.
Despite the high profile of such attacks, for
example the murder in Luxor in 1997 of 58
Western tourists by Islamic militants, the
manner in which these isolated events are
Vol. 7, 1, 64–74 Tourism and Hospitality Research 69
 Tourism and the globalisation of fear
portrayed often say more about the attitudes of
a predominantly Western-controlled corporate
media than it does about the real risks involved
in global tourism. Indeed, stories which relate
these or indeed other attacks on Western tour-
ists often fail to counterbalance their narratives
with the fact most Egyptians, Indonesians,
Palestinians, etc are appalled by such acts of
violence against visitors and that moreover, it
is the very inhabitants of these places that have
been most exposed to the risks of politically
motivated violence. Furthermore, as Aziz (1995:
93) explains in her discussion of violent attacks
against tourists by Muslim groups in Egypt, one
of the first attacks against tourist establishments,
carried out in 1986, was in fact carried out by
disgruntled conscript soldiers, protesting at the
misery of their wages and living conditions, and
not so-called Islamic militants. Most of the
world’s poor never see a tourist, let alone wish
any harm upon them, while the inhabitants of
such destinations in poorer states are constantly
exposed to perpetual insecurity and risk (cf.
Schuurman, 2000). This includes bearing the
brunt of the long-term consequences of an
attack on tourists, both as a result of the down-
turn in visitors as well as any ‘security’ crack-
downs by local authorities (Hitchcock and
Nyoman Darma Putra, 2005). Nowhere has this
been more in evidence than in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories, arguably one of the
oldest tourist destinations in the world.Although
suicide bombings against Israeli targets have
played a part in deterring tourists, renewed
incursions by Israeli forces into Palestinian
territories and urban areas in response to the
second Intifada which began in September
2000, has led to the closure of hotels and left
much of the Palestinian tourism industry in
ruins, as well as damaged its archaeological and
cultural heritage (Chamberlain, 2005).6
Often, tourism and particular destinations
become drawn into distant political conflicts
when accumulated local grievances (linked to
poverty, ethnicity or questions of religious
identity) and wider geopolitical imperatives
collide. For example, Nahdi recounts how a
70 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
combination of satellite TV (raising local aware-
ness of the Israel–Palestine conflict and the wars
on Afghanistan and Iraq), immigration from the
Arabic peninsula and the November 2002
terrorist attacks in Mombasa are factors which
have conspired to exacerbate local, particularly
Muslim, grievances against the West (Nahdi,
29th November, 2002). No doubt the recent
US incursions in Somalia will only serve to
inflame this situation. Although Mombasa and
neighbouring Malindi are no stranger to the
cultural tensions brought about by tourism, the
terrorist attacks coupled with the heavy-handed
response of the US and Kenyan security
authorities have highlighted the West’s rather
mercenary approach to security in East Africa
and reinforced the association of tourism with
Western decadence and neo-colonialism among
some quarters.7 Set in the context of the wide-
spread poverty that surrounds Mombasa, the
troubled relationship between the segregated
nature of some tourism resorts, material depri-
vation and assorted political grievances have
become all too apparent.
Where perhaps tourism becomes even more
closely intertwined with global geopolitics is
in the mapping of global ‘risk’ and threats to
security through the mechanism of state travel
advisories.8 Rather than being objective cata-
logues of security threats they are often heavily
politicised and can be seen as an extension of
a state’s geopolitical concerns. Perhaps the best
known example is Cuba (defined as a seen as
a ‘rogue state’ by the US) to which travel by
US citizens has been heavily restricted as a
result of prolonged US government ideological
hostility towards Castro’s communist govern-
ment.9 In the past, however, the US has advised
against travel to the Philippines, even when it
has been relatively safe, less out of fear for tour-
ists’ safety but rather due to the fact that the
Philippines government failed to renew the US
Bases Treaty (Richter 1995). Paradoxically,
travel advisories may also underestimate risk in
places which are of less geopolitical concern
but where tourists may face genuine dangers
(eg Colombia, Mexico). At times, travel
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00

advisories do, however, inadvertently recognise
that the actions of their own governments may
serve to ignite local animosity towards foreign
visitors or exacerbate the level of risk towards
their citizens overseas, as this warning from the
US State Department demonstrates:
‘The Department of State reminds Ameri-
cans travelling to or residing in the Middle East
and North Africa (Including the Arabian penin-
sula and the Persian Gulf region) to exercise
caution. ‘Tension generated by the current
crisis in Iraq have increased the potential threat
to US citizens and interests abroad posed by
those harbouring anti-American sentiments’.
(US Dept. of State, 2003)
More recently the double-standards which
operate in the course of issuing government
travel warnings were clearly illustrated in the
case of Kenya. Following the attack on an
Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa killing 17
Kenyans and three Israelis, and the simultaneous
attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner on
28th November, 2002, the British government
warned against all non-essential travel to Kenya.
Subsequently, on 15th May, 2003, British
Airways was urged to suspend all flights to the
country. These were only re-instated on 4th
September, 2003, over two months after the
UK Foreign Office had lifted the advice against
all non-essential travel (Tourism Concern,
2003). According to Kenya’s Tourism Minister,
the Kenyan tourism industry lost Sh.1bn within
days of the travel warnings being issued and
BA’s suspension of flights, not to mention the
loss of wages incurred by the local workforce
due to the inability of hotels to pay their staffs’
wages (Daily Nation, 21st May, 2003). The US
and UK governments made the lifting of terror-
related travel warnings subject to the Kenyan
government implementing numerous anti-
terror and security measures, further increasing
the financial burden on a country already
suffering considerable financial losses as a result
of the travel bans (eTurboNews, 20th June,
2003).Not only did ordinary Kenyan citizens
suffer as a result of the collapse of their tourism
industry, but it is they, rather than foreigners or
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
Bianchi
tourists, who have borne the brunt of the
terrorist bombings, not to mention politically
motivated violence in recent years.10 Indeed,
what does not make the news very often, or
indeed at all, is the fact that the vast majority
of tourists remain unharmed in areas of conflict
and violence. For example, in the midst of a
violent conflict between KANU (the ruling
party) youth militia and the Kenyan police
during the 1997 elections, a bus-load of
German tourists were waved through an
impromptu road-block set up by an armed
gang (Economist, 23rd August, 1997).
CONCLUSION
This paper has sought to challenge the instru-
mental and positivist approach to tourism and
conflict/insecurity which ignores the degree to
which tourism is implicated in the ideological
construction of risk and discourses of security.
Rather than an intrinsic force for peace, tourism
— particularly in the light of the current
geopolitical climate — should be seen as closely
intertwined with state power and discourses of
security. It has also sought to demonstrate that
the apparently increased insecurity of global
tourism needs to be put into perspective. For
the large majority of the world’s population,
risk is an almost continuous fact of everyday
existence while the vast majority of the victims
of ‘terrorism’ (whether carried out by states or
non-state organisations) are local populations,
many of whom live far from the world’s tourist
destinations.This argument therefore represents
an attempt also to transcend the narrow obses-
sion with ‘crisis management’ in tourism studies
and to subject the notions of freedom, risk and
security in tourism to critical scrutiny. Indeed
the desire to create a totally calculable and ‘risk-
free’ environment for tourism, only serves to
nurture a myopic form of global travel which
does little to reveal the true nature of uncer-
tainty in which significant numbers of people
in the world’s destinations live.
At the heart of the debate concerning the
relationship between tourists’ freedom to travel
and security, lies an issue of deeper ideological
Vol. 7, 1, 64–74 Tourism and Hospitality Research 71
 Tourism and the globalisation of fear
significance enshrined within liberal discourses
of ‘freedom’. The distinction between the
tourist and other, less valued (by states/capital),
forms of mobility is often elided when invoking
tourism as a fundamental human right. Hence,
the implicit and at times explicit link between
the freedom of movement and the free movement
of capital, only serves to conflate empowerment
with consumerism, and, the right to travel with
the right to freedom of movement. While the
continued expansion of global tourism, may
lead to the further democratisation of travel
(through the cheapening of travel commodi-
ties) and even increase prosperity for some, it
embodies an ambivalent set of freedoms associ-
ated with the imposition of a global ‘free
market’, which tends to ignore the unequal
relations of power on which the extension of
mobility is ultimately based.
Acknowledgments
The paper is an abridged version of a chapter
which will appear in a book currently in prep-
aration by the author, together with Marcus
Stephenson (Middlesex University, Dubai), to
be published by Pluto Press.
NOTES
1 The Dalai Lama maintains that foreigners
should travel to Tibet in order to witness the
results of Chinese repression and inform
others of their experiences (Free Tibet
Campaign, http://www.freetibet.org).
2 At this point, it is worth reminding ourselves
that a mere 3.5 per cent of the world’s
population (760 million arrivals) participate
in international travel (Mastny, 2001: 12). In
terms of volume, domestic tourism is of
course far greater.
3 Ironically, in New York City itself, run by the
now celebrated (for his role in the immediate
aftermath of the September 11 attacks)
Rudolf Giuliani for much of the 1990s,
income inequalities are higher than in the
United States as a whole. During the period
1978–1996, the average income of the top
72 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
fifth of income earners increased by 46 per
cent, while that of the poorest fifth decreased
by 36 per cent (Callinicos, 2000: 4).
4 In 2004, the number of armed conflicts was
at its lowest point than at any time since
the early 1970s.
5 Mowforth and Munt (1998) conceive of
modern-day adventure travel as a thinly
disguised from of neo-colonialism which
involves mostly an illusion of risk while
participants are pampered by poor locals in
a direct re-enactment of the colonialist/
native relationship of subordination.
6 Between 1967 and 1992, 200,000 archaeo-
logical artefacts are said to have been
removed from Palestinian territories, in
contravention of the 1954 Hague Conven-
tion. (Chamberlain, 2005)
7 There have been numerous reports in the
Kenyan press regarding the constant harass-
ment and summary detainment of Kenyan
Muslims since the bombing of the US
Embassy in Nairobi in 1998.There have also
been reports that the US is putting pressure
on the Kenyan authorities to allow the
establishment of a US military base on
Kenyan soil, along with Morocco, Tunisia
and Algeria. Given the already tense nature
of relations between ruling élites and radical
Islamic organisations in these states as well
as the wider global context, it would appear
that this would only serve to antagonise
those prepared to commit acts of terrorism,
thus endangering local and tourists’ lives
even further (Daily Nation, 17th June, 2003).
8 Although it is likely that most tourists will
not consult travel advisories and thus rely
on what they glean from the news media,
friends, relatives and other sources.
9 Travel by US citizens to Cuba for reasons
other than those licensed by the US Depart-
ment of the Treasury (eg educational and
scientific) has been technically illegal since
Kennedy imposed an economic embargo in
the early 1960s and more recently, the
passage of the Helms–Burton Act of March
1996. Nevertheless, US economic aggres-
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00

sion against Cuba dates back to the US
Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.
10 Similarly, despite the exaggerated fears of the
white colonial settlers, a few of whom were
killed, during the Mau Mau rebellion of
1952–1960, the vast majority of ‘Mau Mau’
(Kikuyu rebels) victims were local, indeed,
Kikuyu peasants (Birmingham, 1995: 44–45).
REFERENCES
Aziz, H. (1995) ‘Understanding Attacks on Tourists
in Egypt’, Tourism Management, 16, 2, 91–95.
Aziz, H. (2001) ‘The Journey: An overview of tourism
and travel in the Arab/Islamic context’, in
Harrison, D. (ed), ‘Tourism and the Less Devel-
oped Countries: Issues and case studies’, CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 151–160.
Bach, R. L. (2003) ‘Global Mobility, Inequality and
Security’, Journal of Human Development, 4, 2,
227–245.
Bauman, Z. (1998) ‘Globalization: The Human
Consequences’, Polity, Cambridge.
‘Belgium withdraws travel warning’, The Daily
Nation, Friday, 20th June, 2003.
Berlin, I. (1969) ‘Four Essays on Liberty’, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Birkett, D. (2000) ‘Trouble in the Paradise Industry?’
The Guardian, (Comment section), June 1.
Birmingham, D. (1995) ‘The Decolonization of
Africa’, UCL Press, London.
Brackenbury, M. (2002) ‘Business Impact Assessment —
Summary’, Presentation to the ‘European Tourism
Forum’, Brussels, 10th December, 2002.
Brunt, P., Mawby, R. and Hambly, Z. (2000) ‘Tourist
Victimization and the Fear of Crime on
Holiday’, Tourism Management, 21, 417–424.
Callinicos, A. (2000) ‘Equality’, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Castells, M. (1996) ‘The Rise of the Network
Society’, Blackwell, Oxford.
Cassen, L. (1994) ‘Travel in the Ancient World’, John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Cater, C. (2006) ‘Playing with Risk? Participant
Perceptions of Risk and Management Impli-
cations in Tourism’, Tourism Management, 27,
317–325.
Chamberlain, K. (2005) ‘Stealing Palestinian History’,
This Week in Palestine, Accessed online at:
http://www.thisweekinpalestine.com/details.
php?id=1451&ed=107, 2nd April, 2006.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
Bianchi
Clancy, M. (1998) ‘Commodity Chains, Services and
Development:Theory and preliminary evidence
from the tourism industry’, Review of Interna-
tional Political Economy, 5, 1, 122–148.
D’Amore, L. (1988) ‘Tourism — A vital force for peace’,
Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 2, 269–271.
Davis, M. (2001) ‘The Flames of New York’, New
Left Review, 12, November/December, 34–50.
Economist, The. (1997). War on the Coast, 23rd
August, 1997, 344, 8031, 35–36.
eTurbo News. (2003) ‘US, Britain Set Stringent
Conditions Before they will lift Kenya Travel
Warnings, ’ 20th June, 2003 (accessed at http://
travelwirenews.com, 24th June 2003).
Fekete, L. (2004) ‘Anti-Muslim Racism and the
European Security State’, Race and Class, 46,
1, 3–29.
Fukuyama, F. (1989) ‘The End of History’, The
National Interest, 16, Summer, 3–18.
Goodrich, J. N. (2002) ‘September 11, 2001
Attack on America: A record of the immediate
impacts and reactions in the USA travel and
tourism industry’, Tourism Management, 23,
573–580.
Hall, C. M. and O’Sullivan, V. (1996) ‘Tourism,
Political Stability and Violence’, in Pizam, A.
and Mansfeld, Y. (eds), ‘Tourism, Crime and
International Security Issues’, John Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 105–121.
Harbom, L. and Wallensteen, P. (2005) ‘Armed
Conflict and its International Dimensions’,
Journal of Peace Research, 42, 5, 623–635.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F (2006) ‘MoreThan an ‘Industry’:
The forgotten power of tourism as a social
force’, Tourism Management (forthcoming).
Hitchcock, M. (2005) ‘Tourists as Political Targets:
Reflections on the Bali bombings’, Paper
presented to the 46th Annual Convention of
the International Studies Association, Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, 1–5 March.
Hitchcock, M. and Nyoman Darma Putra, I. (2005)
‘The Bali Bombings: Tourism crisis manage-
ment and conflict avoidance’, Current Issues in
Tourism, 8, 1, 62–76.
Inglis, F. (2000) ‘The Delicious History of the
Holiday’, Routledge, London.
Leed, E. J. (1991) ‘The Mind of the Traveller. From
Gilgamesh to Global Tourism’, Basic Books,
New York.
Levine, A. (1988) ‘Arguing for Socialism:Theoretical
Considerations’, Verso, London.
Vol. 7, 1, 64–74 Tourism and Hospitality Research 73
 Tourism and the globalisation of fear
Lisle, D. (2006) ‘Defending Voyeurism: Dark tourism
and the problem of global security’, in Burns,
P. and Novelli, M. (eds), ‘Tourism and Politics:
Local frameworks and global realities?’
Pergamon/Elsevier, London pp 335–348.
Lyon, D. (2003) ‘Surveillance After September 11th’,
Polity, Cambridge.
Mack, A., (ed.) (2005) ‘Human Security Report’,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Mansoor, S. (2002) ‘I’m a Muslim But I Can Still
Fly’, New Statesman, 18 November, pp. 32–33.
Mastny, L. (2001) ‘Traveling Light: New paths for
international tourism’, Worldwatch Paper 159.
Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) ‘Tourism and
Sustainability: New tourism in the third world’,
Routledge, London.
Munt, I. (1994) ‘The ‘Other’ Postmodern Tourism:
Culture, travel and the new middle classes’,
Theory, Culture and Society, 11, 101–123.
Nahdi, F. (2002) ‘A cocktail of grievances in para-
dise’, The Guardian, 29 November.
O’Bryne, D. J. (2001) ‘On Passports and Border
Controls’, Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 2,
399–416.
Phipps, P. (1999) ‘Tourists, Terrorists, Death and
Value’, in Kaur, R. and Hutnyk, J. (eds), ‘Travel
Worlds: Journeys in contemporary cultural
politics’, Zed Books, London, pp. 74–93.
Pinder, J. (2001) ‘The European Union: A very short
introduction’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y., (eds.) (1996) ‘Tourism,
Crime and International Security Issues’, John
Wiley, Chichester.
Richter, L. K. (1995) ‘Tourism Politics — What has
changed?’ Contours, 7, 4, 20–27.
Richter, L. K. (2001) ‘Tourism Challenges in
Developing Nations: Continuity and change
at the Millenium,’ in Harrison D. (ed.) Tourism
and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case
studies, CABI Publishing: Wallingford, pp
47–59.
74 Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 7, 1, 64–74
Richter, L. K. and Waugh Jr, W. L. (1986) ‘Terrorism
and Tourism as Logical Companions’, Tourism
Management, 7, 230–238.
Russell, J. (2003) ‘Who the hell are you?’ New
Statesman, 6 October, pp. 20–21.
Schuurman, F. (2000) ‘Paradigms Lost, Paradigms
Regained? Development Studies in the 21st
Century’, Third World Quarterly, 21, 1, 7–20.
Schwartz, R. D. (1991) ‘Travellers Under Fire: Tour-
ists in the Tibetan uprising’, Annals of Tourism
Research, 18, 588–604.
Smith, V. L. (1998) ‘War and Tourism: An American
ethnography’, Annals of Tourism Research., 25,
1, 202–227.
Sonmez, S. (1998) ‘Tourism, Terrorism and Political
Instability’, Annals Tourism Research, 25, 416–456.
Stephenson, M. L. (2004) ‘Tourism and Racialised
Territories in Europe’, Paper presented
at the Conference: Borderless Frontiers and the
Implications for Tourism in the New and Enlarged
European Union, Nicosia, Cyprus, 10–11
December.
Toolis, K. (2004) ‘Rise of the terrorist professors’,
New Statesman, 14 June, pp. 26–27.
Tourism Concern. (2003) ‘FCO Travel Advisories:
The case for transparency and balance’,
Tourism Concern, London.
‘Tourism loses Sh1 billion’, The Daily Nation,
Wednesday, 21st May, 2003.
Urry, J. (2000) ‘Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobili-
ties for the 21st century’, Routledge, London.
United States State Department. (2004) ‘Patterns of
Global Terrorism, 2003’, US State Depart-
ment, Washington DC.
Urry, J. (2002) ‘The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and travel
in contemporary societies’, 2nd edn, Sage,
London.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2003) ‘Travel
& Tourism Security Action Plan An Action
Plan for Countering the Impact of Global
Terrorism. Accessed at: www.wttc.org/
News10.htm(21st May, 2003.).
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1467-3584 $30.00
View publication stats