United_Kingdom_Article_Analysis

AP Comparative Politics Article Analysis Title: “Global Warning” Author: Philip Bobbitt Source: New York Times 1. General Summary On October 3, the United Kingdom was warned, by France and Germany, of potential terrorist attacks in Europe, where as the United States was also advised about the same issue by the State Department. Shortly after, French Government alerted its citizens of an increased risk of terrorist attack in Britain. However, the warnings received by the American and British governments have only been considered confusing in light of recent events. Thus, there is great controversy over how the issue of warnings should be dealt with, since the potential terrorist situation is credible but not yet detailed enough. If the warnings are true, separating it into three distinct functions should make an improvement in alert system. What the government should do, is if it believes there is an imposing threat, then they should inform the public about the nature of the threat, but not divulge any more information. 2. Constructing Support In this article, there are a couple restatements of past events, which result in sparking the new way that Britain is handling the potential terrorism threats. The article mentioned the incidents at North Waziristan, past information on Osama bin Laden’s planned attacks after his release, as well as actual threats that France and Germany had received over the past few years. With all of these past events as supporting evidence, the United Kingdom is able to make these assumptions and moves forward to avoid running into any snags. 3. Constructing Support Overall, the article can sense that the United Kingdom was attempting to garner more and more the sense of a community as a whole, where their citizens can rely on the government for their safety. With the increased awareness of the need to have a better alert system, it also can be drawn that the government is taking more of an active lead and trying to create a safer environment for their nation as a whole. In addition, by collaborating on such great terms with the United States, Britain is seen as willing to cooperate with others against a potential threat. 4. Deduction From the article, it can be inferred that the United Kingdom and the United States are both anticipating a potential terrorist threat from both the Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, since all the past events are all pointing up to an attack sooner or later. Also, if this problem was presented to the United Kingdom, they would definitely be able to handle the problem efficiently since their alarm system is so well thought out and will be able to keep the citizens under control and out of chaos. 5. Error Analysis I did not find anything wrong with the methods that the United Kingdom was taking regarding the alarm system to which they would act to if there was a terrorist attack. With their idea of not telling the public of a potential attack if they only hear of it happening like a rumor keeps the public out of chaos and extra fretting over something that may never happen. However, if the situation becomes clear of a purpose and a place and date as to where a terrorist attack will happen, then informing the public is the right thing to do. 6. Abstracting The general pattern of this information is by first stating some of the previous events that happened regarding the United Kingdom as well as other nations that might be affected. From there, Bobbitt goes onto discussing the general gist of the new idea that the Briton’s are adopting as for how to deal in situations where there are warnings of terrorist attacks. And then from there, Bobbitt goes into deeper descriptions. 7. Analyzing Perspective Who the government informs should be determined by how much information the government has of the attack. If the government believes it knows something is coming, but not where or when, it should inform the public about the nature of the threat, but no more. If the government thinks something is about to happen and believes it knows either where or when, but not both, it should alert federal, state and local officials as well as people in the private sector who operate banks, hospitals, energy links, power grids and the like. Only if the government feels it knows both when and where an attack is coming, it should warn the public directly with as much detail as possible. I agree with the article, there needs to be distinctions not only to avoid general confusion, but also to limit the costs imposed on society by the terrorists.