03 November 2016
Terrorism and Security
Does a military presence make a city safer?
by Alexander Nimmo
I have been living in Paris since March 2016 and regularly travel between the capital and the UK. France declared a state of emergency following the Paris terror attacks in November 2015. The result of this state of emergency (which is due to expire in January 2017) is a vastly increased police and military presence on the streets of Paris that costs around €1 million per day, according to news outlets, and is approved by almost 4/5 of the population.
We are often told that we are living in a ‘new normal’, where things that previous generations might not relate to or feel comfortable with, particularly when it comes to ‘safety and security’, are now standard. The most relatable example of this is airport security, where all passengers are forced to undergo a tedious and sometimes humiliating procedure every time they wish to travel by air, and woe betide any traveller who still carries nail clippers with that file on them… The systems put in place at airports have been described by security analysts as ‘theatre’ and ‘next to useless’ and although they may be added to (e.g. restrictions on liquids in 2006) they are never relaxed.
All of these measures are designed to make the public feel safer and have confidence that their government will protect them. Whilst it may be reassuring in the immediate aftermath of an event, the message tends to change over time as people return to their daily lives. Now the uniforms and guns send a message – you should be fearful. The remit of the military deployed in Paris under ‘Operation Sentinelle’ is to dissuade, protect and reassure, but try walking past a group of them outside a school or church at 08.30am on your way to work and none of these sentiments are what you feel. Instead, you avert your gaze as they stare at you, sizing you up to see if you are a threat, guns pointed downwards but fingers still hovering over the triggers and the butts in the crook of their arm. Most are very young, many will probably have never actually seen live combat; all seem to have expressions of boredom crossed with a tense alertness, particularly those around key tourist hotspots. Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon, said in an interview with Vanity Fair that visible anti-terror measures such as those at airports are necessary theatre to restore public confidence, but over time they may in fact become counterproductive, and this seems to be what is beginning to happen with the French situation. The presence of the military and vast numbers of armed police makes people feel, every day, that there is something of which to be fearful. You can’t sit on a terrace and enjoy a drink or a coffee without seeing their street patrols, and instead of a sense of security (that you’re being looked after), you feel annoyed at the intrusion and have an uncomfortable reminder of fear.
On Bastille Day, 16th July, while the French took to the streets and enjoyed the national holiday, I was keener to cover for my colleagues and take an English holiday instead. My walk to work took me as usual via the Arc de Triomphe, and whilst I knew that security would be vastly increased (what better day to strike at the French, after all?) I wasn’t ready for the 40-plus minutes of delay as I was searched three separate times, not allowed down various streets and detained by uniformed men with guns until they could escort groups of five of us to different checkpoints where we were permitted to cross the Champs Elysees. I felt this was fair enough – for one day, and a very important one for the country, you could tolerate the inconvenience and aggravation this caused. Perhaps it had the desired effect in Paris but it certainly didn’t stop a lone malcontent from killing 86 people with a 19 tonne lorry in Nice. And that’s the crux of the problem; we’re not at war; terrorism is designed to do precisely that – sow terror, make people think they are not safe on the bus, on the train, on the way to work or watching a firework display.
Those who lived in Northern Ireland during the 30-year period that characterised ‘The Troubles’ will speak of the normality of having their bags searched on entry to shopping centres and being frisked by police and soldiers, in addition to steel gates aimed at preventing the planting of bombs. Over 500,000 British troops served in Northern Ireland during the campaign, and at the height of The Troubles in 1972, there were 27,000 military personnel in Northern Ireland, based in more than a hundred locations. The violence from both angles is well documented, and distrust of the police and soldiers widespread.
While the situation on the continent is different in many respects, there are warnings from history. Although people got on with their lives and the extraordinary became ordinary, resentment was simmering and would occasionally spill over into violence. There is evidence of that in Paris, with over 400 minor incidents reported against Operation Sentinelle personnel as well as two major knife attacks. After all, if you want to target a country what better representatives to go for than its military? The final issue of this set-up is that it is easy for the public to view the police and soldiers as slightly oppressive: step out of line in any way and there are men with weapons at the ready to deal with you. You don’t have to be a terrorist to get detained, they just need ‘probable cause’; so if the legislation and the men with guns deters other crimes why not leave it all in place and tell the public it is all there ‘for their safety and protection’? After all, that seems to be what every dictatorship has started with……
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
