Tweeters, journalists, politicians, even the security forces in Germany responded on Friday to an “extremist terror” attack in Munich, fearing it was inspired by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), only to discover later that the attacker – 18-year-old Ali David Sonboly, born in Germany to Iranian parents – was a psychologically disturbed individual with no apparent ties to Islamic extremism.
“There’s a general paranoia because of these [ISIS-inspired] attacks that’s now not only in society, but also in the groups of journalists and intellectuals. […] People assumed it [the Munich attack] must be a terrorist attack. So you can see this sort of background paranoia, even among those like journalists, who speculated about the event based on hearsay before the police issued an official statement,” Philipp Hübl told The Cipher Brief.
Hübl, who is a theoretical philosophy professor at the University of Stuttgart, continued, “There’s really sort of a general nervousness, a mood in society, a sentiment that colors the views of these happenings. And only in the aftermath do we see it’s not true.”
This is not only the case in Germany and Europe, but also in the U.S. “There’s a perception that the world has changed – all you have to do is look at some of the commentary coming out of our national convention for the Republican party,” says the CIA’s former Associate Deputy Director for Operations and Cipher Brief expert Robert Richer.
The perception is that the world is more dangerous than it has been in the past. There is a fear of widespread terrorist attacks – especially targeting the West – and “there’s a perception in Europe that immigration has upset the balance and is a threat to national continent security,” says Richer.
The danger is that this perception is skewed. Western Europeans are in fact safer now than they were in past decades. A Statista chart from late last year shows throughout the 1970s and 80s, more people were killed by terrorist attacks in Western Europe than today.
A similar chart using data from the Global Terrorism Database shows a much higher number of fatalities from terrorist attacks in Western Europe between 1970 and 1990, compared to fatalities between 1990 and 2015.
Moreover, Hübl points out that statistically, it is more likely a person will die at home or while driving a car, than from a terrorist attack. The heightened fear of terrorism is a “form of selective perception,” says Hübl.
Richer echoes that, noting although Europe has seen more terrorism in the last two years than in the previous decade, the numbers don’t generally support the idea that we are living in a new world, where “thugs, terrorists, people are running rampant in the streets.”
This is not to downplay the threat of terrorism and terrorist atrocities. However, there is another danger emanating from an over-exaggerated fear of terrorism: the rise of fringe political parties that play on people’s fears to bolster their nationalistic and extremist agendas.
“Many parties within Europe and also in the U.S. are gaining traction by playing the security card against the freedom card,” says Hübl. For example, Germany’s right-wing anti-immigration party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) initially used the Munich attack as yet another reason for why the West needs to crack down on terror, particularly by keeping immigrants out.
In a tweet from AfD spokesman Christian Lüth just hours after the Munich shooting, he encouraged voters to choose AfD, noting “police say there is an acute terrorism situation.” That tweet was subsequently deleted.
Although Munich gunman Ali Sonboly was neither a refugee nor ISIS-follower, Stephen Szabo – Executive Director of the Transatlantic Academy at the German Marshall Fund – told The Cipher Brief, “The AfD and the right-wing will always try to use these things.”
However, Szabo notes he doesn’t think the tactic will work this time around. “I don’t see it being the reaction you’re seeing in France right now, of turning against Muslims. I think the Germans are still going to be a bit more open on this, and see this as just a case of someone who is deranged and going off on his own.”
Even though the Munich attack may not directly help the AfD at the polls, the initial assumption of Islamic terrorism – from countries around the world and from various groups within society – portrays just how strong the double-sided coin of fear and need for security has become.
“It’s a real danger that there’s this balance shift toward the more nationalist security view, instead of the liberal freedom view we are so proud of in the West,” says Hübl.
One of the implications of this shift could affect immigration policy. Szabo notes that Germany has been the key country shaping European policy of refugees, and Germany has been much more open to refugees than France and other European countries. But there is the potential, he says, for the Munich attack and last week’s attack on a train near Würzburg in central Germany (about 170 miles north of Munich) to spill over into the refugee issue – even though logically the Munich attack should have no effect (the Würzburg attacker, on the other hand, was a refugee).
Meanwhile, on Sunday around 4:30pm local time in the southern German town of Reutlingen, police say a 21-year-old asylum-seeker from Syria – who was known to the police – killed a woman and injured two others with a machete. Just a few hours later, a 27-year-old Syrian refugee – who authorities say had been denied asylum a year ago but was allowed to stay in Germany because of the ongoing war in Syria – killed himself and injured 12 others after setting off an explosive device in the southern town of Ansbach. This could provide the impetus for a change to immigration policy.
"Now, it really looks like a contagion of violence and we have to see whether the last two attacks might have been inspired or, if premeditated, triggered by the ones before. All happened in the South of Germany, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, two federal states that were exemplary when it came to the admission and integration of refugees," says Hübl.
“If this spills over into a more restrictive position on refugees, that will certainly have a spill over into all of Europe,” says Szabo, “and this would then lead to a much harsher and tougher approach to refugees.”
Another potential area of impact is internal security. Already, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann has said the recent attacks raise questions about Germany's asylum law and security. He said he plans on Tuesday to introduce measures to strengthen police forces, during a meeting of the Bavarian government.
Even Germany’s defense ministry – Bundesministerium der Verteidigung – seems to be taking action. The ministry told The Cipher Brief, “On the part of the German Armed Forces, we put a unit of the military police in Munich on standby while the dimension of the attack was not clarified on Friday.”
This is a somewhat unusual move, given that in German law, Germany’s Armed Forces – the Bundeswehr – cannot be used for internal security, with the exception of a state of emergency.
Szabo notes that authorities are indeed discussing utilizing the Bundeswehr for internal matters, which is “something they’ve never done before.” But he also says Germans are so sensitive on civil liberties and privacy issues that it will probably take much more – for example, a Paris-like attack coordinated by ISIS – to make this change.
The main consensus among most of the parties within Germany remains an aversion to using the military internally, says Hübl. “A common topic or idea of the conservative and right-wing parties is to always ask for the Bundeswehr to be used also in moments of crisis within the country, which is – from the idea of democracy in Germany – abhorred by many of the more liberal, more progressive citizens,” he says.
Whether or not the Munich, Würzburg, Reutlingen, and Ansbach attacks have an immediate impact on immigration and security policies, a further consideration is if the calls of these nationalistic fringe parties for tighter border controls, heightened internal security, and an enhanced effort in the war on terror would actually bring about more security for citizens.
Richer says he is not sure giving security the upper hand would be in society’s best interest. Still, he notes, “There is a growing belief that we can give up some of our personal liberties – empower the police, empower security services – to the better good.”
Friday’s attack in Munich, which left 10 dead – including the shooter – and more than 20 injured, while not ISIS-affiliated and not committed by a refugee, still plays into the hands of the nationalistic populist parties throughout Europe, and indeed (even back here) in the United States.
