VỤ tấn CÔNG KHỦNG bố 11 9 và tác ĐỘNG đối với NGÀNH lữ HÀNH và DU LỊCH tại mỹ

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
The United States of America is one of the leading powers in the world economy.
However, this nation has been facing with the competition of another growing
economy, China. The economic position of the U.S. is being undermined. The
economic position is established over a long time and determined by many factors.
Just before the lower status of the U.S. economy, the world witnessed the destructive
terrorist attacks into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the U.S. in 2001.
Therefore, the attacks in 2001 might have contributed to lower the U.S. economy
status.
The September 11 terrorist attacks into the World Trade towers in New York
and the Pentagon in the U.S. were among the most outstanding events at the
beginning of the 21st century, which aroused an anxiety to the whole world. These
attacks are nowadays the typical events associated with terrorism. Terrorism is a
matter of politics, which not only concerns with a single country but also to the whole
world. Therefore, there needs to be more investigation into terrorism and the impacts
of the attacks in U.S., typical terrorist attacks. Much research has been carried out on
the topic of terrorism and of the September 11 terrorist attacks as they are concerns of
not only the U.S. but also the whole world. There posed a question of what impacts
have these attacks had on the U.S. economy.
Before the attacks, US travel and tourism were one of the key components in
the U.S. economy due to their contribution to the employment and GDP of the nation.
The U.S. was also a well known destination for its numerous tourist attractions and
various magnificent landscapes. Therefore, it is said that travel and tourism industries
are among the industries greatly affected by the attacks (Villarreal 2003, p.1). The fear
of terrorism may discourage tourists from visiting the U.S. The link between the
terrorist attacks and travel and tourism industries performance is, as a matter of fact, an

1

interesting topic. This research is aimed to bring about a better understanding of the
causes of the attacks as well as the consequences on the travel and tourism industries
in the U.S. With that purpose, the researcher is intrigued to conduct a study on the
topic “The September 11 terrorist attacks and their impacts on the U.S. travel and
tourism”.
1.2 Aims and research questions
The thesis’s primary aim is to investigate terrorism and the U.S. economy
development, restricted to the travel and tourism development in the U.S. In other
words, this research is intended to gain knowledge of the causes of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the impacts on travel and tourism development. In brief, these objectives
were specified in the following research questions.
1.1 Why did the September 11 terrorist attacks happen?
1.2 What are the impacts of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. travel
and tourism?
1.3 Scope of the study
The terrorists attacks killed nearly 3,000 people including civilians, firefighters
and policemen, destroyed two buildings of the World Trade Center, which caused
anxiety and terror among public. Many industries such as air travel, tourism,
insurance, stock trading have had to encounter difficulty as the fear of flight resulted
from the terrorist attacks exemplified in the 9/11 attacks. The relation between the 9/11
terrorist attacks and the status of the U.S. economy is still a great concern of many
people. Due to limited time and limited subject for a bachelor thesis, the research
focuses on the relation between the September 11 th terrorist attacks and travel and
tourism development, which plays an important part in contributing to the annual GDP
in the U.S. through U.S. domestic arrivals and international arrivals to the U.S. The
September 11th terrorist attacks’ impacts on the U.S. travel and tourism will be
examined in terms of employment, output and arrivals after the attacks.

2

1.4 Significance of the study
The completion of this research will be useful for different purposes. First, it
will provide a closer look into the causes of the attacks from different viewpoints.
Therefore, it will be useful for an appropriate public response to terrorist attacks.
Second, the economic impacts of the terrorist attacks on travel and tourism industries
will help to bring about better knowledge of travel and tourism’s vulnerability level to
terrorist attacks. Therefore, it also points out the importance to find appropriate
measures to minimize the impacts and enhance the potential of U.S. travel and tourism
by supporting the industries, encouraging travel and tourism and promote U.S. travel
and tourism abroad. In addition, it also suggests that it is important to prevent terrorist
attacks and at the same time avoid creating obstacles to travel and tourism. Finally, this
research will serve as a reference for researchers interested in studying the U.S. travel
and tourism or the terrorist attacks and their impacts in the field of Country Studies.
1.5 Methodology
This research is carried out with secondary research method (also known as
desk research). The research will collect relevant data from various reliable sources
including primary research, articles from reliable websites, magazines, books, journals.
In the next step, the information achieved will be synthesized, analyzed, compared,
contrasted and evaluated. Then, the conclusion for each research question will be
drawn from the analysis of the researcher.
1.6 Organization of the paper
1. Introduction (background of the study, research question/matter, research method,
significance of the study, main contents of the study)
2. Chapter 1: Background
3. Chapter 2: The causes of the September 11th terrorist attacks
4. Chapter 3: The impacts on U.S. travel and tourism industries.
5. Conclusion
2. CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND

3


2.1. Terrorism
There have been many different definitions of terrorism, and it still seems to be
a concept of debate. The difficulty in defining terrorism is because of the fact that no
individual or group voluntarily uses that word to describe themselves. There are
different definitions from different viewpoints.
According to Townshend (2002, p.3), the U.S. defines terrorism as “the
calculated use or threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate
government or society” and the UK defines it as “the use or threat, for the purpose of
advancing a political, religious or ideological course of action, of serious violence
against any person or property”. Carlile (2007, p.9) said that Australia has a definition
of terrorism similar to that of the UK in the Security Legislation Amendment
(Terrorism) Act 2002, in which terrorism is defined as “an action to advance a
political, religious or ideological cause and with the intention of coercing the
government or intimidating the public.” In the “Definition of terrorism” by Ruby
(2002), the author reviewed different definitions of terrorism. Accordingly, since 1983,
the U.S. Department of State (2000, as cited in Ruby, 2002) has defined terrorism by
Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). Besides, in the first part of
Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, terrorism is defined as “politically
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” Kaplan (1981, p.37)
believed that terrorism aims at creating an extremely “fearful state of mind”. This
fearful state aimed at an “audience” who may have no relationship to the victims.
Similarly, Oots (1990, p. 145) stated that to “create extreme fear and/or anxietyinducing effects in a target audience larger than the immediate victims” is the purpose
of terrorism. According to Tiefenbrun (2003), “in December l999, the United Nations
General Assembly adopted by consensus the text of a draft of the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in which terrorism was

indirectly defined:

4


Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general
public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political,
philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature, that may be
invoked to justify them. (p.384)
It can be clearly seen that according to the U.N, the motivation or the cause
does not justify terrorism. From the above definitions, the term terrorism can be
understood as planned violent action that may be related to politics, religion, ideology
to cause terror and fear among the public.
With a more critical view, Taylor (1988, cited in Ruby 2002) focused on three
perspectives used in determining whether or not an act is terrorism. With the first
perspective, legal perspective, an act is considered terrorism only if it is illegal.
However, the determination whether an act is terrorism under this perspective depends
on which government is interpreting. Two governments, therefore, may view the same
incident differently. As for moral perspective, an act is considered to be terrorism only
if it had no moral justification. Jihad, for example, is done by some Middle Eastern
and Central Asian peoples against evil in the world. Jihad literally means struggle or
effort. The word Jihad is used by Muslims to describe three kinds of struggle: “A
believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible”, “The
struggle to build a good Muslim society” or “Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam,
with force if necessary”. Many Muslims believe that the main meaning of Jihad is the
spiritual struggle, but the interpretation of Jihad as military struggle with many
references to Islamic writing can not be denied (Jihad 2009). The governments and
groups who engage in it believe that politically motivated violence against
noncombatants in the name of Jihad is considered morally justified and not terrorism.

The use of a legal or moral perspective in interpreting terrorism can result in different
viewpoints on the same act. That is the reason why Osama Bin Laden and his
followers honored Jihads and never considered their action terrorism. With the
behavioral perspective, terrorism is defined only by the behaviors involved, not the
laws or morality of those doing the defining. From this perspective, the same

5


conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not a particular act is terrorism. (Jihad
2009; Ruby 2002, pp.9-14)
In conclusion, there is no universal definition of terrorism. Each country or
organization has its own definition from its own perspective. The act that is considered
terrorism by one country may not be considered terrorism by another country.
However, the definition that is widely known is the one defined in U.S. laws. In this
research, the definition of the U.S. Department of State will be referred to for the
concept terrorism.
2.2. Travel and tourism in the U.S. before 9/11
Wikerson (2003) has provided an overview of the U.S. travel and tourism in
terms of measurement of travel and tourism, its importance and the historical
performance until 2001

through the article named “Travel and Tourism: An

Overlooked Industry in the U.S. and Tenth District”.
The definition of travel and tourism used in this research is the one by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which is “the economic activity generated inside
the United States by ‘visitors’ of all types—for business and pleasure, by residents and
nonresidents alike—and outside the United States by U.S. residents” (Kass & Okubo
2000, p.8).

The measurement of tourism is done step by step as there is no specific industry
called travel and tourism. To measure travel and tourism’s importance, BEA needs to
determine which commodities visitors typically buy and the industries producing these
items. The BEA counts the share of output and employment in an industry for travel
and tourism based on the products purchased by visitors. In his article, Wikerson states
that the basic measure of travel and tourism is in hotels, air travel, and
amusement/recreation because of the very high contributions to travel and tourism.
Other measures of travel and tourism activity may include restaurants, car rental
agencies, and public transit. The basic measurement does not include these industries
because of their very small contribution to travel and tourism. (Wikerson, 2003)

6


Travel and tourism is clearly an important industry in the United States.
According to the BEA, total domestic tourism demand in 1997 was approximately
$408 billion, more than 70 percent of which was for leisure travel. A study by Global
Insight found that travel and tourism accounted for 4.0 percent of total output in the
nation’s top 100 metropolitan areas in 2000. The estimates of Travel Industry
Association of America (TIA) show that travel expenditures in the United States were
$591 million in 2000 before falling to $555 million in 2001. (Wikerson 2003, p.48)
As regards employment, the basic travel and tourism industries accounted for
3.6 percent of total U.S. employment in 2000, up from 3.3 percent in 1990. These
shares are similar to those in the BEA’s satellite accounts for 1997 (3.5 percent of total
employment) and the Global Insight study (4.2 percent). Travel and tourism’s share of
employment varies considerably across states. The highest shares are found in Nevada
(27.7 percent) and Hawaii (12.3 percent), while the lowest shares are in Alabama (1.8
percent) and Arkansas (2.0 percent). (Wikerson 2003, p.49)
Travel and tourism has grown steadily over the last half of the 20 th century
except for some years as in Chart 1. During the economic recessions in the 1950s and

1960s and the 1990-91 recession, travel and tourism output still grew faster than the
overall economy and kept rising. However in 2001-2002, real output fell by more than
5% in 2001, though real GDP and real per capita disposable income rose slightly. Real
tourism-related sales dropped by 2% in 2002 whereas national output and incomes
increased slightly according to the BEA’s travel and tourism satellite accounts
(Wilkerson 2003). This may imply that some factors besides recession have impacted
the industry. In this case, the suggested important factor is the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.
In conclusion, the U.S. travel and tourism industries have grown rather consistently
over time before 2001.

7


Chart 1. Annual real growth in the U.S. Output (Wilkerson 2003, p.50)
2.3. Political Context regarding U.S. policies in the Middle East
It is necessary to consider the political context with regards to the U.S. policies
n the Middle East because the September 11 th terrorist attacks on the U.S. were carried
out by terrorists from the Middle East. This fact posed a question of relation between
the attacks and the influence of the U.S. policies in the Middle East. There is no
consistent view of the U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East from different
viewpoints.
According to Dalacoura (2010, p.59), the democracy is an important aspect of
the discussion about U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East. During the Cold War and
in the 1990s, the 3 most important objectives of the U.S. was containing the Soviet
Union, securing petroleum supplies and ensuring the survival of Israel. The U.S.
needed Israel as an ally in the region during the war against Soviet Union.
According to Dalacoura (2010), when the Cold War ended, the two Bill Clinton
administrations (1993 – 2001) focused on democracy and human rights issues abroad.

8

She stated that the Leahy Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act (1998) and
the Religious Persecution Act (1998) were enacted with the purpose to ‘mainstream’
human rights and democracy in US foreign policy. Attention to women’s and labor
rights and that democracy and development were interdependent were the cover of the
US approach. Dalacoura (2010, p.60) interpreted “democratic peace theory” by the
U.S. with the meaning that “democratizing Arab regimes was seen as the means of
securing peace in the conflict-ridden region of the Middle East”. She explained
“democratic peace theory” in more details: “Democratizing the Palestinian Authority
in particular would be a way of achieving peace with Israel and resolving the region’s
most long-standing conflict”. This means that the U.S. needed to democratize Arab
regimes, including Palestinian Authority to promote democracy. However, Dalacoura
(2010) said that the U.S. prioritized stability, the oil supply and other economic
interests, not the democracy and human rights concerns. Therefore, democracy
promotion during this period remained limited from her perspective.
From a different perspective, Sharp (2010) in his report “U.S. Foreign
Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2011
Request” sees the U.S. vital role of supporting Israel to gain peaceful relation,
protecting petroleum supplies and fighting against terrorism. In general, the U.S.
presence at the Middle East is for democracy promotion.
Prados (2001) in his report “Middle East: Attitudes toward the United States”
shows that popular attitudes among Arabs and other Muslims in the Middle East were
unfavorable towards the United States. In this region, the U.S. globalization was
generally blamed for the region’s bad economic status. The U.S. society was perceived
by many as unfriendly to Islamic beliefs and values while many other Middle
Easterners were in favor of the democratic principles and economic opportunities of
the United States. The act of deploying armed forces in the Middle East, particularly
Saudi Arabia (where Islam’s holiest cites are located), also created opposition. The
U.S. containment policies were attributed to continued sufferings of the Iraqi people.

9


Besides, the U.S. policy support of Israel has been considered being the main cause of
Arab and Muslim resentment whereas the U.S. believed that it has tried to solve the
Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.S. role in supporting regimes that are regarded as
oppressive, corrupt, or un-Islamic cause Arabs and other Muslims to feel aversion
towards the U.S. (Prados 2001)
It is difficult to say which opinion on the political context regarding U.S.
foreign policies in the Middle East is true because different opinions stem from
different perspectives. The American civilians might not have paid much attention to
U.S. foreign policies in the U.S. They might only have believed in what their leaders
said and supported democracy promotion which their leaders said was limited in the
Middle East. Therefore, they might encourage promoting human rights there and agree
with the U.S. government. Meanwhile, the followers and supporters of Osama Bin
Laden might trust in his ideology to release Muslims from plight, fight against enemies
including the U.S. who were thought to impose misery on Muslims, support
unfavorable regimes and invade their holly sites. Those who support Osama Bin Laden
might have fallen so deep into religion conflicts and cultural clashes that they might be
ready to devote their lives for what they considered the freedom of their people. From
the perspectives of the U.S. leaders and Osama Bin Laden, they might have had other
reasons for the opposition to each other. From a different perspective, the outsiders
might look at the economic side of the conflict, especially benefits from oil, and
believe that all other viewpoints on the conflicts are just excuses.
The supporters of economic conflict hypothesis may pose a question as to what
U.S. gained from carrying military actions in the Middle East, and they may believe
that if there was no benefit in carrying military actions there, the U.S. would not have
spent any money on military operations in the Middle East. This hypothesis
emphasizes the U.S. interest in oil in the Middle East. However, the hypotheses of

cultural and religion clashes all may be possible though cultural clashes can hardly
lead to military attacks which can cause thousands of casualties. The hypothesis of

10


religion clashes are more likely to cause wars or military actions especially in the
countries where rules of religion are also the political rules such as in Middle East
countries and the faithful there are believed to devote their lives for their belief. In
brief, these hypotheses are built from different perspectives. There is hardly enough
evidence to say which are the truth and which are the excuses for the conflicts in the
Middle East. Viewpoints based on religion conflicts and economic interest, however,
are more possible to explain military operations than cultural clash approach to the
conflicts in the Middle East.

3. CHAPTER 2: THE CAUSES OF 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS

11


Happening in the U.S., targeting at the World Trade Tower and The Pentagon,
the attacks left the questions to ponder why the target was the U.S. The leader of Al
Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and his followers are all Muslims. It is intriguing to identify
whether there is any connection between Islam and the desperate attacks on U.S.
targets. That the attacks causing tremendous influence on mostly civilians through
only a small number of participants has made it difficult to understand what the real
causes of this terrorist attacks are.
3.1 Place, time and participants
The terrorist attacks ended up in the area of the World Trade Towers, the
Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Comprising of 7 buildings, the World Trade

Center complex was located in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States. The
1 World Trade Center (also called the North Tower) and 2 World Trade Center (or the
South Tower) were known as Twin Towers. The other 5 buildings surrounding the
Twin Towers were 3 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center,
6 World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center. The Twin Towers were the two tallest
and most spacious buildings in the World Trade Center complex which had had their
construction completed at different time (table 1) (Fernandez 2002, p.7). About 35,000
people and 430 companies had their office space in the Twin Towers and roughly
70,000 commuters and tourists came there daily. There were between 16,400 and
18,000 people in the WTC complex at the time of the attacks on the Twins Tower
(FAQ about 9/11, 2012). The other attack target, the Pentagon, is the headquarters of
the United States Department of Defense, located in Arlington County, Virginia. (The
9/11 Commission Report 2004, p.1; The 9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary
2004, p.1)

Table 1. World Trade Center Buildings

12


(Fernandez 2002, p.7)

On the Tuesday morning of September the 11 th 2001, four planes were hijacked
to carry out the attacks. American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston, Massachusetts
bound for Los Angeles, California and United Airlines Flight 175 also bound for Los
Angeles from Boston crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New
York City. Within nearly two hours, the Twin Towers collapsed. The other one,
American Airlines Flight 77 bound for Los Angeles from Washington, D. C. was
crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane, United Airlines
Flight 93 flying toward San Francisco, California from Newark, New Jersey aiming at

Capitol, crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. (The 9/11 Commission Report 2004,
pp.32-33)
As reported in the 9/11 commission report, the attacks took place on the
morning of September 11, 2001. At 8:46 an airliner carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
flied into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. To continue, at 9:03, a second
airliner plowed into the South Tower. The Twin Towers both collapsed when it was
nearly 10:30. At 9:37 of the same morning, the third airliner crashed into the western
side of the Pentagon. At 10:03, the fourth airliner crashed in a field in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania because it was forced to change direction by passengers as they knew

13


this was a hijack. It had targeted at the United States Capitol or the White House. (The
9/11 Commission Report 2004, pp.14-33; The 9/11 Commission Report Executive
Summary 2004, p.1)
According to the 9/11 commission report, the participants or hijackers in the
terrorist attacks were found to be 19 young male Arabs acting according to the
command from headquarter in Afghanistan. Mohamed Atta, an Egyptian pilot and
hijacker, was the tactical leader of 9/11 attacks’ plot. The hijackers were the members
of al Qaeda, a group whose leader was Usama Bin Ladin who was also called Usama
bin Laden or Osama Bin Laden because there is no universal rule to transliterate
Arabic words and names into English. Al Qaeda was an international Islamist
extremist terrorist network formed to overthrow governments in the Middle East and
in the Muslim world in general, which do not strictly enforce political and social order
according to religion law. The network was provided with sanctuary by the regime
Taliban, an Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan. (FAQ about 9/11 2012; The 9/11
Commission Report 2004, pp.47- 436; The 9/11 Commission Report Executive
Summary 2005, p.2)
The targeted objectives, WTC complex and the Pentagon are all symbols of

world trade and economic globalization and the military superpower of the U.S. The
targets suggested that terrorists chose the WTC targets where tens of thousands of
people from hundreds of countries worked to attain wide-spread effects on U.S.
citizens and warn other people all over the world. Besides the attacks aimed at the
Pentagon suggested that the terrorists tried to fight against the U.S. military power and
tried to demonstrate that the U.S. was by no means invulnerable to attacks from
outside. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the WTC complex and the
Pentagon were chosen to be the targets of the attacks.
3.2 The human and material loss

14


The estimates of life losses varied between different times and different sources
around nearly 3000 life losses. It is estimated that more than 2,600 people died at the
World Trade Center; 125 people died at the Pentagon and 256 died on the four
hijacked planes (The 9/11 Commission Report executive summary 2004, p.2). The
number of human toll can hardly be exactly counted. Thousands of bodies could not be
identified and others were not reported. The following are the estimates of deaths from
different sources and at various time periods.
Table 2. Estimates of deaths from different sources
Dead Date
Source
2,617 1/25/02 Death certificates at DOH Office of Vital Records
2,823 5/30/02
Wall Street Journal
2,819 9/01/02
Time
2,801 9/11/02
New York City

2,792 9/03/02
New York City
2,775 9/03/02
Associated Press
2,784 9/03/02
USA Today
2,749 2/23/05
ABC News
(Who was Killed in the 9/11/01 Attack on New York City, 2007)
Not only civilians but hundreds of firefighters and police officers also were the
victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center complex. According to USA TODAY,
479 of the people who died had their duty in public service including firefighters or
police officers. More specifically, 121 firefighters were estimated to die in the North
Tower when it collapsed by The Times. (Who was Killed in the 9/11/01 Attack on New
York City, 2007)
The direct material losses were estimated around over $20 billion. Capital
losses in buildings and infrastructure was worth 21.6 $billion (Nanto, 2004, p.CRS-2).
According to Grossi (2009, p.9), the property destroyed in and around the WTC
complex was found to be worth $22.7 billion. Bram et al. (2009, cited in Blomberg &

15


Rose 2011, p.6) gave the same estimate for the place’s cleaning-up, the replacement of
destroyed buildings’ in WTC and the repair of damaged infrastructures and buildings.
According to Wray (2008, cited in Rose, 2011, p.6), the estimate “to replace the
buildings, infrastructure and other amenities" by the New York City’s Comptroller's
Office was $22 billion. These estimates only covered the expenditure for direct
material loss, not including the cost for insurance and anti-terrorist initiatives.
The deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians including hundreds of public personnel and

the direct material losses up to around $22 billion proved the devastation of the attacks
that had never been seen in the U.S. history. That the WTC complex with hundreds of
companies and tens of thousands of people incurred high life losses also meant
impacts on trade. In addition to the economic impacts, such high life losses might
highly possible have left strong psychological impacts on firstly the victims’ families
and relatives, then the U.S. citizens and finally people in other parts of the world also.
These impacts may also suggest the objectives that the terrorists targeted at.
3.3 The causes of the attacks
The leader of the U.S. explained the attacks quite different from that of the
leader of the terrorists. It is not easy to say which the real causes were. People outside
from the attacks from another perspective may give other explanation for the attacks.
There has not been universally agreed causes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
3.3.1 The causes of the attacks according to the U.S. leaders
No victim on September the 11th could imagine that they would be attacked by
suicide plane piloted by the Islamic extremist terrorists. At this time, the U.S. leaders
needed to reassure U.S. citizens as soon as possible. The cause of the attacks given at
that time was expressed through President George W. Bush’s Speech to the Nation
before a Joint Session of Congress on September the 20th in 2001 as follows:
Americans are asking, “Why do they hate us?”. They hate what they see right
here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-

16


appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of
speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. (Bush,
2001, cited in Davis & Silver, 2004, p.1)
These explanations are based on the differences between the U.S. and the Middle
East in politics, religion and values. However, this answer is not persuasive enough
because it is difficult to imagine suicide attacks just because of the differences. The

hatred for these differences between 2 faraway countries could hardly culminate in
suicide attacks with sophisticated planning and huge finance support targeting at so
many people. There will be hardly any benefit in return for these attacks if the cause is
the hatred for differences only. However, these differences can be a possible factor
contributing to these terrorist attacks. President George W. Bush gave this reason with
the purpose of reassuring the U.S. citizens through a possible cause that could not
affect the image of U.S. leaders and policies, and pointed out the differences in
politics, religions and culture of the terrorists. He might have thought of other motives
for the attacks in his minds, the motives given by Osama Bin Laden or the real cause
of the attacks. However, in the politics, it is not always better to tell the truth.
Intelligence agencies are the proofs that certain political information must be kept
confidential for each country or there are certain political secrets that one country tries
to hide from other countries. Whether President George W. Bush knew the true causes
of the attacks or not, he needed to give a reason that relieved the public’s mind, avoid
the conflict between the government and the people as well as win the public’s
resentment towards the terrorists.
3.3.2 The causes of the attack according to Osama bin Laden
In contrast to the reason given by the U.S. president at that time, Osama Bin
Laden in his statements did not mention the differences between his country and the
U.S. Instead, he emphasized the U.S. position against the Palestine and the Muslims in
Palestine, the U.S. occupation of holy sites in the Middle East and support for Israel as
the causes of the attacks. One of his warnings to retaliate the U.S. was as follows:

17


Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful.
America has no shame…We believe that the worst thieves in the world today
and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except
perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or

civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the
fatwah says…The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those
who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. (Osama Bin
Laden 1998, cited in Berner, 2007a, p.77)
Osama Bin Laden also described the plight of the Muslims in Palestine as follows:
For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and
assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have
been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on
their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes
great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency
meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the
tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been
destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized. (Osama Bin Laden, 1998, as
cited in Berner, 2007a, p.71)
He stated that jihad against the U.S. is carried in order to “liberate” Al-Aksa Mosque
and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines, two holy sites in the Middle East. He stated:
The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a
crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at
liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If
the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate
Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is
considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. (Osama
Bin Laden, 1999, cited in Isaacs, 2006, p.74)
Osama Bin Laden also mentioned the purpose of continuing attacks on the U.S. He
said these attacks would be carried until the U.S. retreated from the Arabian Peninsula
and stopped supporting Israel.
We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in
Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above
its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of
the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel. (Osama Bin

Laden, 2001, cited in Berner, 2007b, p.80)

18


Osama Bin Laden accused the U.S. leader of concealing the truth about the cause of
the attacks from the U.S. citizens and repeated the motives for the attacks which he
said lied in the U.S. policies in the Middle East as in the statements:
... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the
Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his
people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking
them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is
that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the
Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land
of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. (Osama Bin Laden, 2003, cited in Berner, 2007c,
p.79)
In brief, from what Osama Bin Laden officially stated, the purpose of the
September the 11th terrorist attacks that could be drawn was to require the U.S. to
leave the two holy sites in the Middle East and stop support for Israel. This purpose
could be dear cause of attacks that has been officially stated. This reason seems quite
logical and appropriate from the perspective of terrorists. However, the attacks on the
Twins Towers, with no attempt to differentiate between military forces and civilians,
could hardly justify the purpose of liberating their land. The terrorist attacks seem
more like taking revenge instead of trying to liberate their land because the terror
caused by the attacks could hardly force the U.S. to leave their intervention in the
Middle East. The impacts of the attacks on U.S. military actions could be in opposite
directions of retreating from the Middle East or taking revenge on the terrorists group.
3.3.3

The other possible causes of the attacks

One popular blame for 9/11 terrorist attacks is put on religion only. The fact
that the terrorists were jihadists taking control of the planes and playing a part in the
attacks causes explanation related to religions that can hardly be dismissed. Dawkins
(2001, cited in Pilat, 2009) stated that the courage that arose from religion was the
force that had driven the attacks in his article:
Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the
Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place…

19


To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering
the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. ( p.8)
Religion can raise the courage in the faithful to an extent that they can readily
devote their life for their belief. The suicide attacks done by Jihadists, which was the
case of 9/11 attacks, may only be seen among Muslims. Therefore, religion obviously
is a possible cause of the attacks.
Another suggested cause of the attacks is the opposition to the globalization. By
this reason the attacks are considered the expression of resentment toward
globalization. In this light, the terrorists cannot accept the socially, politically,
economically and culturally interdependent world. Rushdie (2001, cited in Pilat, 2009,
p.11) said of the terrorists as follows:
Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews,
homosexuals, women’s rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing,
beardlessness, evolution theory, sex.
Globalization is seen negative to many factors including social progress,
literacy, cultural autonomy, diversity, gender, equality, environment and the cause of
poverty etc. In some places, globalization is considered the “engine of social progress”
with a bad influence on traditional politics and religion. The 9/11 attacks are therefore

considered the rejection of the market capitalism, shared values and democracy in the
globalization process. (Pilat 2009, p.12). In the region where religion has ruled the
country for a long time such as in the Middle East, this explanation for the attacks also
seems to be possible. The terrorists might have wanted to preserve their political
regimes with the domination of religion and their resistance to globalization could be
understandable.
The cause that is not often officially stated may be related to the oil supply in
the Middle East. As introduced in the political context regarding U.S. policies in this
region, Dalacoura (2010) said that the U.S. prioritized stability, the oil supply and
other economic interests, not the democracy and human rights concerns in the Middle

20


East. This may cause the terrorist groups to try to get the U.S. away from the economic
interests of the region by the only way that they could do, threatening the U.S. by
suicide attacks. It is possible that they could not afford to fight against the U.S.
military on the front, so they took terrorist attacks on U.S. homeland. The cause may
be around the benefits of oil supply in the region.
In conclusion, there is no universal cause of the attacks found. Viewpoints from
different perspectives make it difficult to identify the true cause. That the causes stated
by U.S. authority differ from those stated by the terrorist leaders is quite reasonable for
political purposes. Besides the causes may differ when viewed from politics, religion
and economics perspectives. The true causes may be concealed from the public as
certain information may not be revealed on political arena. While the U.S. leaders
pointed out to the clash of culture, the leader of the terrorist group brought up
consequences of U.S. military activities on their homeland. Other countries, observing
the attacks from the outside, may note the religious cause and pay attention to the
causes related to economic benefits to find the reason for what happened in the Middle
East and the terrorist attacks inside the U.S. border.

When the causes of the attacks are still in debate, there may not be an only
cause of the attacks. It is also possible that combinations of all or some political,
religious and economic factors might have contributed to the terrorist attacks on the
U.S. in 2001. The terrorist might have resented life in the U.S. which contradicted the
life complying with religious rules in Muslim countries in the Middle East and desired
to build a world of Muslims. Besides, they might have fought for oil supply in the
Middle East and resisted globalization or the influence of the U.S. at the same time.
However, the suggested explanations could hardly be tested and more time and
evidence would be needed for more detailed explanation.

21


4. CHAPTER 3. THE IMPACTS ON U.S. TRAVEL AND TOURISM
The September 11th terrorist attacks disrupted economic activities when
destroying the two world trade tower buildings. The impacts on a specific field, the
travel and tourism industries, will be examined in this research in terms of
employment, output and international travelers to the U.S. as well as U.S. travelers.
4.1 Employment in travel and tourism in the U.S.
4.1.1 An overview of the employment in 2001

Figure 1: U.S. unemployment rate. (Ito & Lee, 2005, p.83)
The U.S. unemployment rate tended to decrease from the mid-1990s until 2001.
Since 2001, especially after the attacks of terrorists in September, the unemployment
rate began to rise. This trend may imply that the September 11th terrorist attacks were
the major factors contributing to the raising unemployment rate in the U.S. economy
afterwards. The lower employment rate might be contributed by the employment
decrease in some industries including travel and tourism industries. The attacks taken
by airplanes might affect the psychology of travelers and cause fear of traveling,
especially traveling by airplane and therefore might reduce travelers in great volume.

The contraction in air transportation may entail slump in, for example, hotel and

22


lodging. As a result, that the contraction in profits requires employers in travel and
tourism industries to cut jobs and lower employment rate in travel and tourism related
industries to survive was inevitable. The GDP growth and unemployment rate in the
U.S. from 1999 to the second quarter of 2002 are recorded as in table 2.

Table 2: Economic indicators (Makinen, 2002, p.CRS-8)

The time of the attacks may be the mark for changes in unemployment rate
growth. The unemployment rate showed a downward trend in 1999-2000 period with a
0.2% decrease. Since 2001, the trend changed its direction. Though the unemployment
rates in the first, second and third quarter of the year increased, they could not
compare with the increase in unemployment rate in the fourth quarter following the
attacks. In the fourth quarter of 2001, there has been a dramatic increase in the
unemployment rate by 0.8% from 4.9% to 5.6%. This unemployment rate remained in
the first quarter of 2002 and continued to increase in the second quarter of that year.
There may be other factor determining the unemployment rate, but the
September 11th attacks were the key factor in explaining rising unemployment rate in
the U.S. On March 26, in the first quarter of 2001, the National Bureau of Economic
Research stated that an economic downturn had started in March, 2001 (Makinen
2002, p.CRS-8). The revised GDP accounts for 1999-2001 by the Commerce
Department shows that the GDP decrease begun in the first quarter, proving that the
U.S. economy had been in a recession nearly 6 months before the attacks. One may
say that it is impossible to differentiate between the impact portion of the attacks and

23

that of the economic recession. However, from the time of the attacks, the
unemployment rate sudden increased by an outstanding rate. Therefore, this sharp
increase was largely contributed by the attacks. The unemployment rate in the New
York City, where the 9/11 attacks occurred, rose even higher than that of the U.S. From
the very second quarter of 2001 to third quarter of the same year (including the time of
the attacks), the unemployment rate immediately rose by 1.1% from 5.2% to 6.3%
compared to the rise of 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.3% of three preceding quarters. This sharp
employment decrease at the place where the attacks had happened is the immediately
and clearly seen consequence of the attacks.
4.1.2 Employment in travel and tourism industries since 2001
Table 4. Employment in industries related to travel and tourism.
(Villarreal 2003, p.CRS-6)

Immediately after the attacks, employment in U.S. travel and tourism related
industries showed an obvious downward trend. The employment of the industries in

24


2002 fell by 270,000 persons from 2001 (Nanto 2004, p.CRS-6). Travel-related sectors
were among those who have experienced higher job losses in the U.S. since 2001.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), between 2000 and the first quarter
of 2003, employment in travel and tourism related industries declined by about 8%
(389,000 jobs). Air transportation sector experienced the highest losses of 11%
(136,000 jobs), the hotel and lodging sector lost 6% of its jobs (121,000 jobs) , and the
amusement and recreation services sector lost 6% of its employment (95,000 jobs),
travel agencies experienced job losses of 22% (37,000 jobs). The decrease in travel
agencies and related employment, however, may be largely attributed to the

technology change (i.e. use of Internet reservations). Meanwhile, total U.S. non-farm
employment declined by about 1% (1.3 million jobs). Nearly 30% of all non-farm job
losses were accounted by the employment decrease in the travel and tourism sectors
mentioned in table 4. (Villarreal 2003)
Investigating into the impacts of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. travel and
tourism employment requires looking into the trend of employment over year. The
concepts of total tourism-related employment, direct tourism employment and indirect
tourism employment must be clarified.
Total tourism-related employment consists of direct tourism employment plus
indirect tourism employment. Direct tourism employment comprises of all jobs
where the workers are engaged in the production of direct output (for example
hotel staff and airline pilots) and indirect tourism employment comprises all
jobs where the workers are engaged in the production of indirect tourism output
(for example, workers producing hotel toiletries and delivering fuel to airlines).
(Kern & Kocis 2007, p.22)
The direct employment growth in the U.S. travel and tourism can be divided
into two periods: one negative growth in employment and one positive growth in
employment. The negative growth periods continued for three consecutive years 2001,
2002, 2003 with the highest decrease in 2002, the year right after the attacks. Though
the economic recession started in March, the decrease in travel and tourism related
jobs in 2001 was still lower than the decrease in the following year. One explanation

25