Last week in class we talked about the role of development in countering terrorism. Specifically we listed Global, Strategic and Tactical development. For some reason, I find development in any of these forms as lacking the potential to curb terrorism. While poverty may be a factor that promotes terrorism, it cannot be considered a cause of terrorism, because there are a lot of countries around the world which are poor but do not display any signs of terrorism.
Because most terrorists have multiple sponsors, I do not think that the aid that supports one or two of their constituencies may be an incentive for them to denounce terrorism altogether.
I further find it ironic that a terrorist group such as the Al-Queda, which is fighting the effects of globalization under a religious banner, and do not want any kind of foreign influence on their lands will accept foreign aid from the countries it is fighting.
Whether we choose to improve the GDP of particular countries, or develop certain cities regions etc, it is the terrorists we have to appease and not just their constituent public. After all, most terrorist organizations do not necessarily represent main stream demands.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I disagree. I believe that if we look at many of the areas that are spawning terrorism they have an economic need. One of the fundamental reasons of existence for terrorists is to cry out against an oppressive government for not equally distributing wealth. While I do agree many countries are poor and do not resort to terrorism, conversely I see that terrorists come from poor countries. Southeast Asia is a newer breeding ground for terrorists and is very impoverished. I believe that if the underlying problem of food, sanitation, and education were met in most areas there would not be as much terrorism as there is today.
One thing to keep in mind in light of these arguments is that the spread of what led to American prosperity has contributed to the willingness of some to participate in terrorist activities. Many become disenchanted with the promises of globalization and react radically. So, economic motives can follow a path that is not totally intuitive. In other words, efforts to help certain areas economically may be counter-productive and thus does not offer a good course of action to overcome terrorism.
However, I agree with many scholars that for an individual to participate in terrorism requires more than economic deprivation-- ideology and devotion to a cause contribute to the occurrence of terrorism.
i disagree. though the effectiveness of these tactics may not be so far reaching as to eradicate terrorism (like we have talked about, nothing is a silver bullet), assisting those countries in ways that provide them with economic and civil services may weaken the terrorist's constituency and influence in the region. though a terrorist group or organization may call a place home, not everyone buys into their ideology, and having an outside source backing their position would strengthen their role against the terrorists and may eventually purge them from the area. the terrorists themselves may be against globalization, but they cannot be against basic survival. being provided food and a means of survival, as samuelw said, would at lead resolve the underlying poverty issues driving the terrorists to strength.
I have not denied the fact that poverty could act as a breeding base for terrorism, or that most terrorists are angry about the unequal distribution of wealth between the global north and the global south, or even between different classes within their respective countries. Development will certainly improve the living conditions within countries and their constituent public may stop supporting them. But, so what? Terrorists operate across national boundaries.
But more importantly, as Luke points out, terrorists hold certain ideologies, and act according to their beliefs. Improving their living standards by giving them money,or educating them will not change their deep rooted beliefs. I do not think terrorists are deprived of the basic necessities such as food , water, shelter, and clothing. While terrorists attract new recruits from among the poor unemployed classes, the leaders themselves are not always poor. It is a great idea to help a poor country out of poverty, but while development may foster better understanding between different countries, I still do not think that it could be counted on as a Counter Terrorism tool.
Well I think it depends on the organization. Religious terrorists like Al-Qaeda I see in a different category. They are basically impossible to please. But I look at other terrorist organizations that are fighting for equality, rights, finacial support, etc. Development cannot be discounted as a counter-terrorist tool simply because it won't work in all cases. The point is no counter-terrorist tool works in all cases, which is why many must be utilized. However, development is certainly important in helping to prevent pervasive hopelessness and anger which is channeled to violence. It definitely should not be discounted.
Post a Comment