Countries must and should cooperate to reduce its impact and prevent its spread. Yet, when we look at what terrorism is defined as, controlling it can in some countries be a cover for repression of what, in others, would be seen as a legitimate movement for self-rule. Similar considerations apply to fundamentalism. This can be a serious problem but, because the threat has been so exaggerated in the past, it has been debased. Politicians crying wolf have, to some extent, desensitised their populations to this threat, at a time when it may now actually be becoming more serious.
Information security is likewise of real concern to all nations.
However, in some central and eastern European countries, what is understood by this term is very different to what it has come to mean in the West. Indeed, information security may even be abused as a catch-all justification for state control of information, where a government fears free expression and would rather reimpose authoritarian control. These three examples highlight the potential for political manipulation of some new, non-military threats to security. More study of this problem is necessary, as well as more education of policy elites, journalists and the public so that the measures taken to protect society are appropriate, effective, and not counter-productive. Gauging where to draw the line between the legitimate expression of ideas and interests and unjustifiable threats to the health or existence of state and society requires serious analysis.