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 disenfranchisement, on the other. As the recent attacks against tourism in places as diverse as Morocco, Tunisia, Kenya and Indonesia demonstrate, the 'right' to travel and the liberal conception of freedom which underpins these rights, have increasingly become mediated by heightened 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 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 reflection where the relationship between tourism, risk and security is concerned, as well as the relations of power which structure the distribution 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 ideological frameworks which structure and influence public discourse on tourism.

This paper seeks thus to reflect upon the relationship 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 transcends 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 hegemonic 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 consumption (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 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 prosperity 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 essential 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 tourists). 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 enterprise, 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 impediments. 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 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 influence of tourism on processes of democratisation 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 network of places into an international tourism system under the aegis of integrated, transnational tourism corporations, based predominantly in the metropolitan capitalist states (Clancy, 1998). It could be argued that international 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 individual mobility epitomised by tourism, is equated with freedom, and put forward as a means of nurturing cultural exchange, peace and prosperity (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 expansion 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 statement 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 borders. States seem intent on gaining security by stopping the world from moving' Tourists are engaged in a constant quest for novelty, excitement and adventure while simultaneously 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 categories 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 political 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 contributed to the sense of perpetual insecurity and an exaggerated climate of fear (see Toolis, 2004). According to Mike Davis, the globalisation of fear and accompanying securitisation of politics, reflects 'the quest for the bourgeois utopia of a totally calculable and safe environment' (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 technologies of surveillance' which pervade the Americanised metropolis and security measures 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 exaggerating 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 unprecedented 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 Department (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 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 counterparts 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 temporarily 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 surveillance and filter, enabling the passage of those who are eligible to travel and/or who are to be granted the privilege of acceptable 'guests', 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 political instrument that both signifies and regulates the boundaries between tourists and non-tourists, insiders and outsiders, and ultimately, citizens 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 technology (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 platitudes often belie the extent to which tourism can be implicated in the appropriation, enclosure 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 Israel [sic] but failed to mention that East Jerusalem 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 emphasised 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 disasters (2004 tsunami, earthquakes). As a result, they are easily deterred from visiting a particular 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 'security' associated with tourism, however, lies an unspoken assumption in which the 'tourist' is by definition, always 'innocent of the implications 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.

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 'Westernised' 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 economies 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 organisations in Indonesia, North Africa and Jordan suggests that acts of political violence against tourists have become altogether more indiscriminate, 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 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 tourists 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 downturn in visitors as well as any 'security' crackdowns 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 combination of satellite TV (raising local awareness 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 widespread poverty that surrounds Mombasa, the troubled relationship between the segregated nature of some tourism resorts, material deprivation 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 catalogues 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 government.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 tourists' 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 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 Americans travelling to or residing in the Middle East and North Africa (Including the Arabian peninsula 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 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 instrumental 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 obsession 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 uncertainty 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 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 commodities) and even increase prosperity for some, it embodies an ambivalent set of freedoms associated 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.

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 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 archaeological artefacts are said to have been removed from Palestinian territories, in contravention of the 1954 Hague Convention. (Chamberlain, 2005)

7 There have been numerous reports in the Kenyan press regarding the constant harassment 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 Department 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 aggression 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

1. Aziz, H. (1995) 'Understanding Attacks on Tourists in Egypt', Tourism Management, 16, 2, 91–95. | Article |
2. Aziz, H. (2001) 'The Journey: An overview of tourism and travel in the Arab/Islamic context', in Harrison, D. (ed), 'Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: Issues and case studies', CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 151–160.
3. Bach, R. L. (2003) 'Global Mobility, Inequality and Security', Journal of Human Development, 4, 2, 227–245. | Article |
4. Bauman, Z. (1998) 'Globalization: The Human Consequences', Polity, Cambridge.
5. 'Belgium withdraws travel warning', The Daily Nation, Friday, 20th June, 2003.
6. Berlin, I. (1969) 'Four Essays on Liberty', Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. Birkett, D. (2000) 'Trouble in the Paradise Industry?' The Guardian, (Comment section), June 1.
8. Birmingham, D. (1995) 'The Decolonization of Africa', UCL Press, London.
9. Brackenbury, M. (2002) 'Business Impact Assessment — Summary', Presentation to the 'European Tourism Forum', Brussels, 10th December, 2002.
10. Brunt, P., Mawby, R. and Hambly, Z. (2000) 'Tourist Victimization and the Fear of Crime on Holiday', Tourism Management, 21, 417–424. | Article |
11. Callinicos, A. (2000) 'Equality', Polity Press, Cambridge.
12. Castells, M. (1996) 'The Rise of the Network Society', Blackwell, Oxford.
13. Cassen, L. (1994) 'Travel in the Ancient World', John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
14. Cater, C. (2006) 'Playing with Risk? Participant Perceptions of Risk and Management Implications in Tourism', Tourism Management, 27, 317–325. | Article |
15. 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.
16. Clancy, M. (1998) 'Commodity Chains, Services and Development: Theory and preliminary evidence from the tourism industry', Review of International Political Economy, 5, 1, 122–148. | Article |
17. D'Amore, L. (1988) 'Tourism — A vital force for peace', Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 2, 269–271. | Article |
18. Davis, M. (2001) 'The Flames of New York', New Left Review, 12, November/December, 34–50.
19. Economist, The. (1997). War on the Coast, 23rd August, 1997, 344, 8031, 35–36.
20. 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).
21. Fekete, L. (2004) 'Anti-Muslim Racism and the European Security State', Race and Class, 46, 1, 3–29. | Article |
22. Fukuyama, F. (1989) 'The End of History', The National Interest, 16, Summer, 3–18.
23. 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. | Article |
24. 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.
25. Harbom, L. and Wallensteen, P. (2005) 'Armed Conflict and its International Dimensions', Journal of Peace Research, 42, 5, 623–635. | Article |
26. Higgins-Desbiolles, F (2006) 'More Than an 'Industry': The forgotten power of tourism as a social force', Tourism Management (forthcoming).
27. Hitchcock, M. (2005) 'Tourists as Political Targets: Reflections on the Bali bombings', Paper presented to the 46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1–5 March.
28. Hitchcock, M. and Nyoman Darma Putra, I. (2005) 'The Bali Bombings: Tourism crisis management and conflict avoidance', Current Issues in Tourism, 8, 1, 62–76.
29. Inglis, F. (2000) 'The Delicious History of the Holiday', Routledge, London.
30. Leed, E. J. (1991) 'The Mind of the Traveller. From Gilgamesh to Global Tourism', Basic Books, New York.
31. Levine, A. (1988) 'Arguing for Socialism: Theoretical Considerations', Verso, London.
32. 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.
33. Lyon, D. (2003) 'Surveillance After September 11th', Polity, Cambridge.
34. Mack, A., (ed.) (2005) 'Human Security Report', University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
35. Mansoor, S. (2002) 'I'm a Muslim But I Can Still Fly', New Statesman, 18 November, pp. 32–33.
36. Mastny, L. (2001) 'Traveling Light: New paths for international tourism', Worldwatch Paper 159. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.
37. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) 'Tourism and Sustainability: New tourism in the third world', Routledge, London.
38. Munt, I. (1994) 'The 'Other' Postmodern Tourism: Culture, travel and the new middle classes', Theory, Culture and Society, 11, 101–123.
39. Nahdi, F. (2002) 'A cocktail of grievances in paradise', The Guardian, 29 November.
40. O'Bryne, D. J. (2001) 'On Passports and Border Controls', Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 2, 399–416.
41. 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.
42. Pinder, J. (2001) 'The European Union: A very short introduction', Oxford University Press, Oxford.
43. Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y., (eds.) (1996) 'Tourism, Crime and International Security Issues', John Wiley, Chichester.
44. Richter, L. K. (1995) 'Tourism Politics — What has changed?' Contours, 7, 4, 20–27.
45. 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.
46. Richter, L. K. and Waugh Jr, W. L. (1986) 'Terrorism and Tourism as Logical Companions', Tourism Management, 7, 230–238. | Article |
47. Russell, J. (2003) 'Who the hell are you?' New Statesman, 6 October, pp. 20–21.
48. Schuurman, F. (2000) 'Paradigms Lost, Paradigms Regained? Development Studies in the 21st Century', Third World Quarterly, 21, 1, 7–20. | Article |
49. Schwartz, R. D. (1991) 'Travellers Under Fire: Tourists in the Tibetan uprising', Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 588–604. | Article |
50. Smith, V. L. (1998) 'War and Tourism: An American ethnography', Annals of Tourism Research., 25, 1, 202–227. | Article |
51. Sonmez, S. (1998) 'Tourism, Terrorism and Political Instability', Annals Tourism Research, 25, 416–456.
52. 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.
53. Toolis, K. (2004) 'Rise of the terrorist professors', New Statesman, 14 June, pp. 26–27.
54. Tourism Concern. (2003) 'FCO Travel Advisories: The case for transparency and balance', Tourism Concern, London.
55. 'Tourism loses Sh1 billion', The Daily Nation, Wednesday, 21st May, 2003.
56. Urry, J. (2000) 'Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the 21st century', Routledge, London.
57. United States State Department. (2004) 'Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2003', US State Department, Washington DC.
58. Urry, J. (2002) 'The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies', 2nd edn, Sage, London.
59. 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.).

Acknowledgements

The paper is an abridged version of a chapter which will appear in a book currently in preparation by the author, together with Marcus Stephenson (Middlesex University, Dubai), to be published by Pluto Press.