False alarms
Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? Lets refresh your memory:
once upon a time, a wolf began to prey on a small village. The cowardly creature would not show up during the day, but would wait till the villagers were asleep to steal and eat their livestock. The villagers soon had enough, so their elders decided that people should keep watch, and that anybody who sighted the predator should shout Wolf, Wolf!!!", upon hearing which all the men in the village would attack and kill the wolf. As if it knew the plan, the wolf kept away for a while. A young man wanted some excitement but couldnt wait for the real thing. So he went to the village square one quiet night and began to scream at the top of his voice "Wolf, Wolf!!!", upon hearing which the villagers rushed out with their weapons to deal with their enemy. Alas, there was no wolf. The young man was apologetic, explaining that he merely wanted to test the efficacy of the eldersstrategy. They accepted his apology but warned him never to do that again. But he did. Again, and yet again. Fewer people responded to his alarm each subsequent time he shouted "wolf, wolf!!!". Well, a few days later, someone noticed that the boy was missing. They searched, but not too heartily, because they thought he might be pulling another one of his tricks. A few days later, the worst was confirmed; the boy was gone. Somebody recalled hearing him shout Wolf, Wolf!!!" a while back. In fact, everybody heard, but nobody took any notice. It turned out that the boy was actually being attacked by the wolf when they heard him crying "Wolf, Wolf!!!" But nobody took him seriously; and now he was dead, eaten by the wolf. ..
Chances are, the details of the tale as you recollect it might be different from that narrated above. Not to worry; this and other such didactic tales have been told so many times, in many different languages, and against diverse cultural backgrounds, that it is not surprising that the details might change in each community, and with each retelling. But they all seek to either teach a moral, or to draw from contemporary fears to tell a cautionary tale.
Before you begin to imagine that we have plagiarized the lecture notes of literature 101, lets quickly turn to the issue for the day.
On Thursday 6/07/2007, the American embassy in Nigeria issued another of its numerous security alerts. They announced that "the US Mission in Nigeria has received information that US and other Western interests (and) commercial installations in Abuja and Lagos were at risk of a terrorist attack. Although no details of the alleged attack was given (who is behind it? From where did it emanate? How was it to be carried out? When? etc,) the embassy nevertheless warned US citizens to be vigilant "and be aware of their surroundings at all times". Not many were surprised by the warning - some even expected it coming just five days before the anniversary of the unfortunate event we all call "September 11".
About the same time in 2005, major embassies in Lagos and Abuja were closed for days as a result of a similar terror alert. It might have comforted the Americans that chiefs of the Nigerian Armed Forces immediately had an "urgent and critical meeting" following which they claimed to be up to the task of defending the country from terrorist and other security threats. We would wish that the army was as prompt and decisive in dealing with the now common rash of hostage-taking in the Niger Delta (those ones are no longer taking Caucasians, they are now seizing children and babies for ransom!). Or that the police and other security agencies would be as earnest and effective in dealing with the armed robbers who have now made our cities a deadly playground. Indeed, the security situation in our country is rather parlous. Only an ostrich would deny that. But there is something worrying about the alerts that foreign embassies now relish in dishing out, not just in Nigeria, but elsewhere. As the story narrated above illustrates, those who use terror as a political weapon have no scruples about their victims; but their critical weakness is that being essentially cowards, they would only attack the weak ones at the point where defences are low.
Alarms and warnings should therefore have the effect of spurring the society to action so as to confront the looming danger with a common defence. Organisising the common defence and taking precautions to protect the weak ones come at great cost. The normal rhythm of the lives of millions of people (in some cases) is disrupted; incalculable economic loss is caused; distrust and social stress is experienced. The peculiar character of the American terror alert is that because "radical" Muslims are the assumed perpetrators, all other Muslims immediately come under deep suspicion (since not many wish to tell the difference between "radical", "conservative" and other what-not Muslims). In societies where the conscious Muslims are a minority, their lives are made miserable by suspicion. In other words, those with responsibility for warning the public of potential security threats must appreciate the social and economic impacts of these warnings. Security warnings should be based on credible threats. The good faith and integrity of the warner must not be in doubt; because once the community loses confidence in the warner, the alarm system is compromised. And when this happens, defences are perpetually low. This, then only serves to embolden the potential terrorist; who now knows that he can now expect weak resistance from the masses- and that he can do maximum damage amongst them. Sadly, the security alarms we get these days are not credible; the warners are not faithful to the common good, so they have lost every shred of integrity.
Knowing that "Security concerns" have now become a pretext to justify every selfish political or ideological adventure, ,nobody takes the warners seriously anymore. To illustrate, in July, Michael Chertoff - the US Homeland Security secretary - "disclosed" to the Chicago Tribune that the US faced a heightened risk of terrorism during the years summer! It turns out that Chertoffs alarm was just a "gut feeling" based on what he called a pattern of, terrorist incidents. Imagine the panic that must have greeted that disclosure, and the costs of meeting the challenge ﾖ for governments, businesses, communities and individuals. But it also turns out, as a painstaking research - done by the Washington-based Brookings institution showed, that there was no historical or statistical bases for the assertion. In other words, Chertoffs warning was a hoax. A cry of "wolf, wolfl!!".
Finally, there is something tactically wrong with the idea of pretending to preempt potential terror threats (if, indeed, any attack is in the offing) by merely raising the level of social hysteria. If you know of a planned attack, is it not better strategy to follow up, investigate and diffuse the threat? When you announce the probability of an inchoate attack, _ you simply arm your quarry with information. He now knows what little facts you have on him, as well as the weakness of your preparedness to deal with his threat. He is therefore better equipped to avoid detection and capture. .Thus, he can wreak maximum havoc - at a time and place of his own choosing. It is no wonder that nobody takes warning anymore. The common reaction now is, was that a terror alert or someone shouting "wolf, wolf?!"
This article was culled from the publications of Deen Communication Limited