GLOBALISATION’S CONSEQUENCES ON TOURISM AND SECURITY
« Travel and tourism are only possible during a state of normality, when the tourists feel safe to enjoy their holiday and capable to return home safe and soun »
LHCH is really concerned by Tourism and security problems since we collaborate with a lot of Tourism board in Europe and China. This pandemic situation hits everyone. Here a very interesting paper written by specialists also deeply concerned by these questions.
Thank you to Dr Ovidiu Laurian SIMINA, Timișoara Center for Migration and Security Studies (SISEC), Prof Grigore SILAȘI, Emeritus Professor, Jean Monnet Professor, West University of Timișoara ; Dr Bogdan MARINESCU Associate Professor, National College of Home Affairs, Alexandru Ioan Cuza Police Academy, and University of Pitești, and administrator of EU China Business and Tourism Summit Committee.
The virtuous/vicious circle in the context of economy disruption caused by a pandemic
In travel and tourism sector
Using 2 different crisis as main examples, such as the Tōhoku earthquake of 2011 in Japan and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, let’s study the relationship between the exercise of freedoms (including freedom of movement) during a crisis and the measures aimed to provide security and safety, which of course may touch on the freedoms as the state of emergency may require. The paper tries to raise the awareness on the fact that security is the state of normality of the society, which is paramount for travel and tourism sector.
LHCH has the right to publish here some important parts of this brilliant paper.
Cherry blossom in Japan…
Probably the best time for a vacation during the year is from October to May, indeed. But… happens that it was the morning after Christmas on 26 December 2004 when the second most violent earthquake recorded after 1900 (9.3 Richter) – known as the Sumatra–Andaman earthquake – has produced some 283,000 victims in South-East Asia impacting 14 countries on 2 continents (Lay et al, 2005). Terrorist attacks on Hurghada beach of Egypt took place in January 2006. The Island based Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted in early April 2010 to cause disruption of air traffic in some 20 countries as the ash covered large areas in Northern Europe, with approximately 10 million travellers affected. And – to close here the examples of crisis situations impacting the international tourism – the suicide attack in the Istanbul’s historic Sultanahmet district (in the vicinity of the most visited Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sophia) killed 13 foreigners and injured 14 others on 12 January 2016.
Travel and tourism are only possible during a state of normality, when the tourists feel safe to enjoy their holiday and capable to return home safe and sound. Tourism, security and safety are linked.
On 11 March 2011, the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded struck the Tōhoku/Sendai region of Japan, shortly followed by a high tsunami which pummelled Japan’s north-eastern shoreline. The disaster took some 15,900 lives, fully destroyed 121,991 buildings, and displaced over 470,000 people, with a huge cost of more than $210 billion in economic damage. On the other hand, at the very moment of the writing of this paper, the Japanese authorities are prepared to declare the state of emergency as the infections with the new coronavirus SAR-CoV-2 which spread all around the world since December 2019 has topped 1,000 in the capital, Tokyo, as reported by The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper quoted by the European media.
The Japan earthquake of 2011 is one of the many examples of crisis impacting the overall economy and especially the international travel and tourism. The earthquake of 11 March has been followed by the partial explosion of the Fukushima nuclear power plant on the following day.
On 11 March 2011, the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded struck the Tōhoku/Sendai region of Japan, shortly followed by a high tsunami which pummelled Japan’s north-eastern shoreline. The disaster took some 15,900 lives, fully destroyed 121,991 buildings, and displaced over 470,000 people, with a huge cost of more than $210 billion in economic damage. On the other hand, at the very moment of the writing of this paper, the Japanese authorities are prepared to declare the state of emergency as the infections with the new coronavirus SAR-CoV-2 which spread all around the world since December 2019 has topped 1,000 in the capital, Tokyo, as reported by The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper quoted by the European media.
The Japan earthquake of 2011 is one of the many examples of crisis impacting the overall economy and especially the international travel and tourism. The earthquake of 11 March has been followed by the partial explosion of the Fukushima nuclear power plant on the following day.
(…)
The total number of international tourism arrived to Japan dropped by 28% to 6.2 million in 2011, compared to 8.6 million tourism arrivals the previous year – and also had a significant short term impact on domestic tourism. Much of this was driven by fear of widespread radiation, sensationalised and distorted to apocalyptic proportions in some sections of the media and the blogosphere.
As the radiation threat has been mostly regional, around the Fukushima plant (the exclusion zone) and up to some north-east of Tokyo, not affecting directly the main touristic spots for which Japan is widely known, the entire tourism industry focused to re-establish trust in the safety of the entire country, in order to bring back the national travellers and international tourists. “Japan needs international tourists to return, not only for those who depend on tourism for their livelihoods, but even more importantly to help bring a sense of normality back to Japan”, underlined at the time Kylie Clark, head of PR and marketing for the Japan National Tourism Organisation (JNTO), as quoted by The Guardian. Plenty of incentives have been offered during the second half of 2011 by the airline companies flying to Japan, the hotels and the concerned Japanese authorities. They have eventually managed to re-establish Japan on the destination list of sakura lovers, and the hordes of tourist slowly returned to Japan for the autumn season, increasing visitor numbers from 900,000 in the autumn of 2011 to 8.5 million in the spring of 2019: “Japan’s cherry blossom season has very big economic effects every year”. Japan was capable to get back to the normality, displacing a sense of security and safety.
SAR-CoV-2
(…)
The crisis is back to Japan, as SAR-CoV-2 virus severely hit the archipelago along most of the countries around the world.
The Japan population and millions of tourists should now be enjoying the blooming start of the 2020 cherry blossom viewing season (or hanami), as sakura is indeed extremely important for Japan, both economically and culturally. But in the spring of 2020, crowds have been asked again to stay away and some countries started to cancel flights to or from Japan. The pandemic spreading all over the world has direct influence on the Japan (and the world) travel and tourism: events and celebrations cancelled and foreign visitors staying away. To prevent the further spread of the coronavirus, people in Japan were urged not to hold hanami parties during this year’s cherry blossom season, many famous cherry blossom viewing spots are temporarily closed, and most sakura festivals and illumination events have been cancelled.
As mentioned, the crisis provoked by the new coronavirus has been brought to the world audience mostly linked to the situation of the Diamond Princess cruise, after erupting in the Hubei province of China in late December 2019. A passenger previously landed in Hong Kong tested positive with SAR-CoV-2. The Japanese authorities decided to quarantine the pleasure ship in Yokohama and the news got primetime world coverage, people understood the virus infection has escaped from China, so their travel plans started to be re-evaluated. In spite of the similar epidemiologic crisis involving the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) some 17 years ago, the confused Japanese authorities made some mistakes by not taking into consideration the real risk of infection among the very crowded cruise forced to quarantine without real prevention and protection measures in place for vacationers and crew. The Japanese authorities played down the risk of infection, ignored best medical practice for evacuating passengers, and activated only low-level protocols for dealing with outbreaks. Ultimately, twelve people died and more than 700 were infected, including some government officials. The scandal was huge, the passengers’ countries of origin started to evacuate their nationals, bringing them home, also importing the fears of infection in the respective countries. Probably was the time when the first planning to contain the soon-to-be pandemic had been put in place by western states, as the flight travel from China to various country in European Union were banned. The virus spread ashore, because Chinese returned to their resident countries outside mainland China or foreign tourist and business alike finalised their winter vacation in China and went back to Europe and the Americas, already infected. People returning from China (and soon from Italy, the second country affected at a larger scale after China) have been put into isolation or directly in institutionalised quarantine, if not already hospitalised with serious health conditions aggravated by the new coronavirus infection.
Diamond Princess was soon followed by some other vessels in troubles (A/N: at least five suspected cases at the time of this paper preparation) making efforts to receive approval to dock and disembark the vacationers, once the virus has been confirmed and infected cases already recorded aboard and quarantine required. As passengers of crew of many cruise ships were found to be infected with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus (an estimated 21 cruise ships have had COVID-19 cases on board), four major cruise lines, Carnival (which operates the Diamond Princess), Royal Caribbean, Norwegian and MSC, have agreed to suspend their cruise programme.
(…)
The pandemic changed everything in the civilian aviation sector.
(…)
Globalisation, crisis and tourism. Tourism and security – the effects
As the industry created for the purpose of moving people for rest, recreation or business, the tourism has reached a fantastic level nowadays due to developments in transport, telecommunications, economy, science and the need to get in touch with people from all over the world in the global world. We can say that we have to do with a Ying and Yang, with a symbiosis of interdependence between the development of tourism and the other economic branches, a process in which each one takes a step forward aided by the other and thus all finally achieve progress.
Globalisation and interdependence increase rapidly when the states follow policies towards trade liberalisation, freedom of investments and mobility of goods and people (labour). The (real) globalised world economy implies free (unrestricted) circulation of goods, labour forces and capital, with similar interest rate. In reality, the globalisation brings national borders penetrated but not irrelevant. Globalisation is not the equivalent of a universal human community. From a social point of view, direct contacts between individuals with various religious beliefs and own values have conducted to development, welfare but often to destructive conflicts. Social globalisation, as part wide globalisation concept, has facilitated the spread of people, cultures and ideas, but the oldest form of globalisation is the environment, the equivalent of various maladies spreading. The 14th century Plague epidemic originated from Asia and its spreading to Europe and the rest of the World resulted in the death of one third of the European population. At their turn, the Europeans exported diseases to the Americas during the 15-16 centuries, who let to the decimation of some 95% of the indigenous population.
The exercise of freedoms generates multiple risks on security, particularly in the form of a vicious circle. If during the state of normality, the freedoms, recognised as fundamental, guarantee the businessmen the freedom of decision, the workers the freedom of job choice and the consumers the freedom to choose between a wider variety of products, the state of emergency change the approach towards freedom. We have covered the connection between freedom and security in Silași and Simina (2019) and discussed the virtuous circle vs freedoms in Silași and Simina (2019). Freedom and security (with the related safety assurance measures) are interlinked. The legal migration of labour forces could bring economic consequences, such as demographic impact, competition on the labour market and increase of the informal economy or the criminality rate – freedom of travel is also applying to criminals along businessmen and seasonal workers (Silași and Simina, 2019:166). Exercise of freedom may also bring insecurity – a vicious circle during the state of normality.
But on the other hand, should the security and safety of the citizens are affected, as it is happening during the 2020 pandemic, the return to the state of normality could bring limitations to the exercise of freedoms.
The expansion of the security sphere to the ‘security chain’ comprising all the links of the disaster risk reduction chain (prevention, mitigation, response, reconstruction) makes it harder to define where security starts and normality ends – all the more since the four phases do not come to pass sequentially. This mean a blurring of spheres of normality and exception (Warner, 2013: 83-84). The restrictions and the lock-down imposed by the authorities in their efforts to limit the pandemic, with all associated measures to limit movement and non-essential business (with obligation to observe the quarantine), are in fact disrupting the virtuous circle and confirm the apparition of the vicious circle. During the state of emergency, too much freedom could be seen as a break of security, while the enforcement of security measures could limit the freedoms (mostly the freedom of movement, including the freedom of travel for the mobile workers).
Various measures to support public health systems, safeguard the economy and to ensure public order and safety have been put in place during the initial phase of the pandemic (because this is not over; the concerned authorities have estimated that the crisis may continue until June 2020, depending on the results of containment). The long-term macroeconomic recovery is vital. The short-term economic disruption may appear difficult, but guidance for long-term recovery will dictate the trajectory of macroeconomic growth (unfortunately, this is where the major risks lie). The world economies are connected and, regardless the number of infected persons in a certain country during the pandemic, the economic and social effects are felt at global scale. Health related restrictions imposed by governments have strong impacting business and the economy in general terms – the vicious circle. Although globalisation has been around for centuries, its contemporary form is more complex and faster the most important differences are tired of the digital revolution. Modern globalization operates at a much faster rate than its previous forms (as an example, the “Love-Bug” virus only needed three days in 2000 to spread the globe and to infect sufficient computers to be considered a severe threat).
The pandemic already has tremendous effects on the economy.
(…)
Air travel restriction all around the globe, docking of most of cruise vessels and postponement of their activity, along with the closing of most of tourism sector which would be benefiting of services provided by airlines and cruise companies has as well implications on labour market and on the daily life of migrant workers which were forced to return home when their job disappeared following the business limitations. Will only mention here the case of migrant workers originating from Philippine and Romania and the impact on the pandemic on their job and welfare.
(…)
Back to Europe
On the other hand, the Romanians (with reference to seasonal or mobile workers) found themselves in strange situations. In the first round, as the pandemic spread over the Northern Italy, closing businesses and especially tourism establishments, plus work in agriculture, the Romanian seasonal workers (non-residents) found themselves without work and faced precarious conditions. Their return to the home country was blocked by the measures taken both at an early stage by Romania, namely the suspension of all flights from Italy or from Romania to Italy, as well as by the measures taken by the other European states to manage and prevent the COVID-19 epidemic.
Based on the request for support filled in at some of the seven Romanian consulates existing in Italy, the Romanian ministries of foreign affairs together with that of transport have organized several charter flights from Italy and France to facilitate the repatriation of citizens temporarily abroad for seasonal work reasons. In the second round… as soon as they arrived home (and being introduced in institutionalised quarantine for 14 days in hotels on the Black Sea shore), the Italian authorities wake up and noticed there are not sufficient workers to support the re-opening of the economy and the preparation of future crops in the Italian extensive agriculture which should support the continuation of fight with the pandemic. Same signals have been received from Germany and from the UK. In such circumstances, the Romanian authorities should resolve the dilemma: how the seasonal workers are taken out from the (forced) quarantine and are sent back to Italy, Germany, UK or wherever they are of need… and who supports their transport back on the European farms and factories which are producing the goods later imported to the Romanian supermarkets (as up to 5 million of citizens are permanent migrants, equivalent of more than 2/3 of the entire workforce, the Romanian crops and constructions have started to benefit of the imported labour force mainly from the East Asia).
Austria also requests their Romanian doctors back. Because the health system of Austria is heavily dependent on medical staff from the Eastern Europe, many doctors and nurse shuttle back and forth, staying for weeks at a time at the Austrian hospitals. The country got the blame for not taking care of situation in the Alps during the ski season, which allowed famous resorts in Austrian Tyrol to become the source of infections with the new coronavirus for a large part of European countries: the Tyrolean village of Ischgl transformed itself from a “white winter’s dream” to a prolonged nightmare for recent visitors, as the crowded winter resort proved to be the perfect incubator for the coronavirus, later spread all around Europe: hundreds of tourists are believed to have contracted the coronavirus there and taken it home with them. With some 13,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases, Austria desperately needs doctors and medical staff to support the effort. In spite of the need of same doctors in their countries of origin from the Easter Europe, Austria has managed to secure them at the end of March – 231 doctors were flown in to provide round-the-clock care in the region of Lower Austria, which organised chartered flights from Sofia (Bulgaria) and Timișoara (Romanian), to ensure that care is not disrupted by COVID-19 travel restrictions.
The European Commission has promptly intervened to support the European fight with the pandemic, by preparing the practical guidance to ensure the free movement of “critical workers”. In this respect, the Commission has given the green light to the so-called “green corridor”, that is, to the free movement of agricultural workers in the EU on a par with those in the health sector, as the best way to respond to the emergency of Italian agriculture. Taking into account the agriculture’s importance in the national economy and of the specificity of the season – the time for ploughing, sowing and land preparation, engaging in farming work has been included between the activities excepted from the travel/work restrictions imposed by the Romanian authorities as part of measures to prevent a larger spread of the virus infection. At the same time, following the Italian request and in line with the EU recommendation on the “green corridor”, the restrictions for those farm workers having seasonal contracts in the Italian farms will be lifted by Romania and the freedom of movement for this specific category of workers will be re-established, in spite of the state of emergency rules.
Supply chain resilience is going to the biggest question before businesses in the coming years, and many issues of both sustainability and trust are going to be critical to understand the supply chain resilience and benefit from it. The pandemic, appeared in China which manufactures one-fifth of the world’s goods, has brought in a new question—global supply chains are cost-effective, but how resilient are they? How can companies ensure that a health crisis in one part of the world does not cripple their entire supply chain? How resilient are these supply chains? In a world where the risks come from places that cannot be controlled by any border, trustworthy information flows become even more urgent to maintain supply chain resilience. The dismantling of trade barriers in order to re-establish the supply chains is encouraged. In the case of the European Union, the Commission issued new practical advice on how to implement its Guidelines for border management, in order to keep freight moving across the EU during the current pandemic.
The pandemic is expected to have enormous economic consequences indeed, and it is also having a devastating impact on global education. According to UNESCO figures, up to 1.3 billion learners around the world were not able to attend school or university as of end of March 2020. Missing school and training may influence the future of learning, the future of labour, with possible major consequences – both social and economic – on the long run.
« The modern interdependent globalisation, freedom and security are interconnected »
Tourism and security. Freedoms, security and beyond…
The modern interdependent globalisation, freedom and security are interconnected. The security and freedom are like the oxygen, easy to assume until you lack it and then you can’t think of anything else, you miss it and you will do whatever needed to get it back.
The pandemic urged Government to enacting various measures to support public health systems, safeguard the economy and to ensure public order and safety.
(…)
Disasters, however, are not automatically security issues. Epidemics, even the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-19, were not considered security threats and were not treated in an exceptional mode.
(…)
The role of human mobility restrictions on the containment and delay of the spread of contagious viruses, including the 2019-nCoV virus that is ravaging the world, has been generally acknowledged: Enhanced social distancing in the destination cities, and, if an epicentre can be identified as was the case for the city of Wuhan in China, a lockdown, can play crucial roles in “flattening” the daily infection cases curve, giving the stressed medical system a chance to regroup and deal with the onslaught of new infection cases (Fang, Wang and Yang, 2020:22).
The Wuhan lockdown on 23 January 2020 had a significant contribution to reducing the total infection cases outside of the city, even with the social distancing measures have been imposed later by other cities. Fang, Wang and Yang (2020: 21-22) estimate that the COVID-19 cases would be 64.81% higher in the 347 Chinese cities outside Hubei province, and 52.64% higher in 16 non-Wuhan cities inside Hubei, in the counterfactual world in which the city of Wuhan were not locked down. Although the research of Fang, Wang and Yang (2020) focuses exclusively on the effect of human mobility restrictions on the spread of 2019-nCoV virus in China, its estimated results can have general implications to other countries in their fight against the Novel Coronavirus.
We are in an unprecedented situation and the normal rules no longer apply. Creative responses must match the unique nature of the crisis – and the magnitude of the response must match its scale. But regardless of the constitutional and legal arguments on the duration and the procedure for prolonging the state of emergency, it is extremely important to be aware that this exceptional situation will not be permanent. If the state of emergency were to persist, then it would become a state of normality where its end is no longer a priority. Important for all state institutions and for the members of the society is that it remains a priority to quickly deplete the state of emergency, to remain what it is, a state of temporary exception.
Disasters bring political capital: a disaster enhances state legitimacy and legitimizes violence and expropriation of so-called ‘eminent domain’ (Warner, 2013: 84). Disasters and also their handling tend to create social disturbance, often amplified by the media, leading to political questions about risk and responsibility. At the same time, security sectors have a vested interest in presenting everything as a security issue. If there is a disagreement about the timing and intensity of security measures, authorities are to be held to account.
However, the security and safety do not represent the same concept, even if nowadays we tend to assimilate or to understand them together.
(…)
The new coronavirus pandemic happens at the time when thousands of migrants were prepared to irregularly cross the land border between Turkey and Greece. Law enforcement agencies across the European Union are activated to manage a possible migration crisis, in parallel with the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic. At the same time, as part of the epidemiologic measures, the EU’s external border should act as a security perimeter and that Member States and Schengen Associated.
Countries should restrict any non-essential travelling from third countries into the EU+ area. They are allowed to refuse entry at the external borders to ‘non-resident third-country nationals where they present relevant symptoms or have been particularly exposed to risk of infection and are considered to be a threat to public health (COM, 2020). But Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Austria are currently using the exception clause in the Schengen Borders Code by extending the period of random border checks. According to the provision of the Schengen regulation, checks at the border are possible according to EU regulations if “there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a member state”. Actually, border checks should only be temporary. However, Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, called for reverting back to normal in the Schengen area: “If Schengen ceases to exist, Europe will die”.
The pandemic is also an opportunity to rethink the modern office and its ecosystem, to move business and education in the digital environment. This is an opportunity to think beyond the office and create a more harmonious and fruitful work-life balance.
(…)
The replacement of routine jobs with automation especially during a time of crisis is inevitable.
The efforts of governments to combat the global spread of the coronavirus had a significant impact on the serious and organised crime landscape as well, due to the decreased mobility and flow of people and the decreased supply of goods or the disruption of the supply chains in line with the movement limitations. At the same time, the supply of certain illicit goods has been affected, forcing the criminal organisation to adapt their actions. While governments and people are busy with the fight of the crisis and with providing support to those in need, the pandemic and related measures offer opportunities to criminals to exploit the crisis. Criminals have adapted their modi operandi or have already engaged in new criminal activities, exploiting the crisis, and mainly the increased anxiety and fear of the (un-informed) population (Europol, 2020). Various fraud schemes to capitalise on the anxieties and fears of victims throughout the crisis have been reported.
In time of pandemic, social distance (physical distance in fact) is required/imposed, direct contact and interaction between human beings are limited, while teleworking, use of social media and the online purchase is recommended and even encouraged. The (recommended) online activity could be an issue especially for the elderly or those unaccustomed with or unaware on the security over internet and secure online payments, often using outdated security systems and thus offering a window of opportunity to cybercriminals. With a record number of potential victims locked-down at home and using online services for work, study, shopping and entertainment during the pandemic, most crimes have been recorded in relation with cyber scams and attacks (Europol, 2020 B).
The virus outbreak reminds us as well on the connections with (or the implications of) the climate change. The lockdowns and social distancing caused by the coronavirus are giving humanity a taste of the disruptions to daily life that will be caused by climate change. This crisis reveals how fragile our current way of life has become: in modern industrial societies, the fallout from Covid-19 feels like a dress rehearsal for the kind of collapse that climate change threatens. There is any known direct link between global warming and Covid-19, but animals are moving to cooler zones, bringing them and the diseases they carry in closer contact with humans (i.e. epidemiologists consider the SAR-CoV-2 came from bats). The first effects of climate change are disasters such as the wildfires in Australia and California, African hurricanes, South Asian typhoons and harvest collapses in the Middle East. Because those factors can disrupt wildlife migration, the second effects of climate change are pandemics [we may also add climate change related human migration waves, as jobs disappear in deserted lands]. In this respect, policy makers and business leaders must recognize that climate change will be even more disruptive than the coronavirus. The economic and social crisis – emerged as result of the epidemiologic crisis – reveal how fragile the current way of life has become. Social distance and isolation measures (which are temporary imposed during the pandemic, in order to stop/reduce the spread of the virus), will become part of the daily life in the years to come, so returning to business as usual is a “fantasy”. The lockdowns and social distancing caused by the pandemic are giving humanity a taste of the disruptions to daily life that will be caused by climate change in a not very far future. The climate change has already started to affect the daily life all around the world.
« Security or Freedom » ?
The crisis of the coronavirus is teaching us that leadership is about simultaneously considering the localised impact of the global. A critical questions that business leadership will face once the coronavirus crisis is over is – what will be the future of consumption? Man cannot live by Netflix alone. Technology and automation can resolve (and eliminate) any human problems of labour. It is emphasising that one thing that is easy to forget – businesses need customers. And if the ecosystem is brutally damaged, no matter how automated, how artificial intelligence (AI)-ready the business is, its success is in peril without customers (coming to the point: the travel and tourism sector do need vacationers and businessmen to travel!).
What comes next? What is the future of the pandemic, what comes after? There are several questions to be addressed in order to get the real picture on security tourism nexus and of the interconnections between globalised security and tourism. Understanding the geopolitics of Asia (and mainly of China) and how it intersects with the world will make possible to understand why travel is resilient and why the travel and tourism centre will remain in Asia in a post-coronavirus world. The world is already Asian. If you have 60 percent of the world population in Asia, and you have more than 50 percent of global GDP in Asia, and most of the world’s military powers and nuclear arsenals and mega corporations are already in Asia. So present is Asian, let alone the future.
Security of freedom? How to solve this conceptual crisis? Security is the defining element of existence, freedom is a form of life, but if there is no security, there can be no freedom, no freedom can function. On the other hand, security may in turn be the equivalent of freedom restriction. This does not mean that the society enters a phase of dictatorship or deprivation of liberty, or the elimination of liberty, but freedom does not make sense and cannot manifest outside security. The application of the Schengen agreements has shown in practice that freedom cannot be reconciled with security, freedom of movement may have security implications, while law enforcement may bring limitations to the freedom of movement of people/workers, goods and capital. Schengen cannot function properly, because the European society has not reached that level where both security and freedom can coexist in parallel.
LHCH Disclaimer :
The views expressed in this article represent the personal opinions of the authors, not implying the entities they are representing or the institutions and organisations they are professionally active in.
About the authors :
Dr Ovidiu Laurian SIMINA is research fellow at the Timișoara based Center for Migration and Security Studies (SISEC) which he co-founded in 2006 as a research unit focusing on migration and mobility studies. Dr Simina covers labour migration, migration and mobility, migration security nexus, migration and religion connections, and transnationalism and interactions within the Romanian Diaspora.
Professor Grigore SILAȘI, PhD, Jean Monnet Professor, is Emeritus Professor at the West University of Timisoara and Professor of Economics at Ioan Slavici University of Timisoara. He is director of the Center for Migration and Security Studies (SISEC), which he created as a project under the first Romanian Jean Monnet European Center of Excellence established in 2011 at the West University of Timișoara. Prof Silași focuses on European integration, diplomacy, European economy and law. During his long academic career, he has coordinated more than 50 PhD thesis in economics.
Dr George Bogdan MARINESCU is associate professor at the National College for Home Affairs of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza Police Academy and at the University of Pitești – Faculty of Education Sciences, Social Sciences and Psychology. He covers European security, and CSDP/CFSP, EU-NATO relations, public security, organizational sociology, leadership and group’s sociopsychology,administrator of EU China Business and Tourism Summit Committee.
