American Policy caused 9/11?

Is American Foreign Policy Responsible for 9/11?
http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/Is-American-Policy.html
By: Ryan Mauro

After the attacks of September the 11th, many questioned, “Why do they hate us?” While any deliberate attack on innocent civilians is deplorable, it is important to find the cause of radical Islamic terrorism. Many people point to the sources of anti-Americanism as the cause of terrorism, but anti-Americanism does not translate into an acceptance of, and willingness to participate in, suicide bombings. It is not fair to blame anti-Americanism (and thus American policy causing anti-Americanism) as the cause of the sickness, because hatred of one country’s policy does not lead most people to justify killing innocents. After all, most of Western Europe and Latin America is anti-American, but they aren’t participating in terrorism. The deliberate massacring of civilians, although conducted by many groups over history, is currently unique to the Islamic world, specifically the Middle East and North Africa. What is going in the region that is causing Islamic terrorism to blossom?

All terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda, rely upon sponsorship by governments to be effective. This is the most important reason that terrorism has blossomed. Terrorists do not rely upon the support of populations, but of support from governments. At the time of 9/11, the State Department designated the following countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Cuba. Most people would add Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to that list, although that probably wasn’t done for political reasons. The Pakistanis and Saudis have played both sides a bit. If terrorism is not the inevitable result of offending people, but rather is an instrument of enemy states, then that means declaring War on Terror doesn’t strike the source of the problem. It’d be as if the colonists declared a “War on Bows and Arrows” during their fight with the Indians.

While self-criticism will be necessary in assessing how to combat terrorism, we have to be careful to not blur the lines between what’s acceptable and what is unacceptable. I find it strange that people ask themselves what we did to deserve being targeted by Islamists. Is that not the same thing as victims of abortion clinic bombings asking what they did to deserve being bombed? Sometimes there are just philosophical differences, and people who use those differences as a way to find a purpose in life, even if it means dedicating themselves to killing innocents over those disagreements.

While American policy surely causes anti-Americanism, and policy should be fixed to reduce that, there are limits. For example, Islamists may condemn our culture, but does that mean we eliminate our freedoms to sooth their anger? Islamists, and the governments that promote them, deliberately manipulate the feelings of the population. Their hatred comes from half-truths. One only needs to take a quick glance at American foreign policy to see that terrorism does not emanate from an objective critique of our actions.

For example, while Islamists condemn our support for Israel and presence in Saudi Arabia, they make no mention of what we have done for Muslims. During the Cold War, we staunchly opposed any Soviet interference in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were backed by America to defeat the Soviets. In 1990, the U.S. freed Kuwait from the Iraqis, and defended Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holy land, from his probable scheme to invade. In 1995 and 1999, we fought on the side of the Muslims to protect them against the Serbs and Croatians, who were Christians! In 1999, the US hurt relations with Russia by criticizing their action in Chechnya. And it was American pressure that caused Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, forcing Jewish families from their homes, so the Palestinians could make it a homogenous area for themselves. While the U.S. does sell arms to Israel, we do the same for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and its Arab enemies. Just like the radical Muslims manipulate the interpretation of the Quran for evil ends, they also manipulate the interpretation of American policy for evil ends.

Likewise, while anti-Semitic feeling is real in the Islamic world, Israel is also a scapegoat in many cases. Few people know that Israel actually treats the Palestinians better than any Arab country does. The entire Palestinian problem was created by Arab nations refusing to allow the Palestinians into their country, and even today, Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights in the Arab world. There are religious disputes, of course, but we must question why this translates into violence and a demand that one side simply not exist. Israel allows Muslims to visit their Holy Sites and even lets them vote in municipal elections (Bard, 221-223). This isn’t to say Israel is perfect or their positions are correct, but one must ask why Israel, which is the least oppressive in the region (even towards Muslims), is the target.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former Al-Qaeda terrorist and associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, also disagrees that American policy is what caused 9/11. In his book, he describes how he was taught not to think, how all misery was blamed on the infidels, and how 72 virgins awaited him in heaven, which was a treasure because sex before marriage, masturbation, and even looking at a woman in certain ways were strictly forbidden. Dr. Hamid describes how verses of the Koran are used to teach their students to kill the infidel, arguing that these verses are what cause terrorism, not current events. He also describes the history of violent political Islam, highlighting how it goes back to before the establishment of either the state of Israel or the United States. Hamid’s thesis is that all Islamic terrorism emanates from “purists” who forcefully took control of the Arabian Peninsula, thus controlling the heart of Islam (and able to shape it to their mold), and then during the 20th century, they exported this form of Islam using the oil wealth. He also notes that more Muslims have been killed by Islamic terrorism than Americans or Israelis, so the idea that the Israel issue is the primary motivator is false.

Some say Islamic terrorism comes from being poor or uneducated. This is also untrue. Bangladesh is the poorest Islamic country, but few terrorists come from there. Saudi Arabia, the richest Muslim country, has the highest number of terrorists. It also doesn’t come from a lack of education, because terrorist organizations rely upon highly educated Muslims to operate (Hamid, 78-79).About three-fourths of Al-Qaeda terrorists who have been captured come from the upper or middle class, and the remaining one-fourth come are mostly immigrants who went to Europe and due to the welfare state in Europe, and “by the standards of the Third World, these people are not poor” (Miniter, 127).

I personally feel the theory that best explains Islamic terrorism is the one advocated by Dr. Bernard Lewis. He noticed that most terrorists emanate from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. These are countries that are American allies, yet are corrupt and deny freedom and rights to their citizens. Saudi Arabia funds Wahhabism, the strand of radical Islam closest to Bin Laden’s ideology, and Pakistan created the Taliban. Egypt’s state press is anti-American, eager to blame America (rather than the government) for their ills. For example, a majority of Egyptians believe “the Jews” did 9/11, not Bin Laden (Bard, 254). Lewis’ theory is that America is targeted not because of our advocating of freedom (or, “imposing our way of life” as some say) but because of our hindering of freedom. These three countries are failed states, but the rulers are rich. The people of these countries hate their governments, and when they see America allied with their governments, they see a conspiracy to oppress them. The governments of the people, whom wish to remain in power, must project their anguish upon an external enemy, with America being the easiest scapegoat because we have the wealth, power, and prestige. You can see this in the state-controlled press of these countries. Additionally, such as in the case of the Saudis, their internal enemies leave the country to fight the West. Thus, a cycle is created. Although terrorists hate these governments which ally with the West, they rely upon them. The governments, who fear the terrorists, export them outwards, and at the same time, crush any hopes of freedom because any referendum will result in their loss of power. Lewis then concludes that political freedom, allowing people to control their own lives and channel their talents into productive causes, is the antidote to radical Islam which emanates from oppressive governments.

There’s one more part to his theory. Oppressive governments then, which are opposed by the United States, govern populations that are pro-American. He says, “It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments. But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call ‘friendly governments.’ And it is those, of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people.” (Lewis, 1).

The evidence shows he is right. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the people quickly allied themselves and embraced democracy despite the attempts by terrorists and state sponsors of terror to sabotage it. In Iran, the people despise the regime. I attended a conference of Middle Eastern democratic leaders at Seton Hall a few weeks ago. Amir Abbas Fakhravar, a top student leader who was imprisoned by the regime for his anti-mullah demonstrations, described how the people of Iran want the mullahs gone, and many have American flags hidden in their homes. Farid Ghadry, the leader of the Reform Party of Syria, described the same thing in Syria. Eblan Farris from Lebanon also described it. The people there support America because we have stood up to the regimes that oppress them.

In conclusion, I think that we should listen to the former terrorists and the democratic leaders in the Middle East as to what caused terrorism. They know it better than we do, as they have lived in or amongst terrorist organizations. Their feelings about the cause of terrorism are unanimous. It is caused by state-sponsors who use it as an instrument of warfare, and we are merely caught in the cross-fire of an Islamic civil war between those who favor democracy, freedom, human rights and those who favor Islamic “purity,” oppression, and a denial of those values that every human possesses. Their solution is also unanimous: That the United States must stand with those who stand for freedom and reform in the Islamic world, assisting them by various means, and against the state sponsors of terrorism who simultaneously threaten their citizens and our own.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References



Bard, Mitchell G. (2002). Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.

Hamid, Dr. Tawfik. (2005). The Roots of Jihad: An Insider’s View of Islamic Violence. Top Executive Media.

Jeffrey, Dr. Grant R. (2002). War on Terror. Toronto: Frontier Publications.

Lewis, Dr. Bernard. (2006). Bring Them Freedom, Or They Destroy Us. Retrieved April 21, 2007 from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bring_them_freedom_or_they_des.html.

Miniter, Richard. (2005). Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terrorism. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

US Policy and Terrorism

US policy, not poverty, 'is cause of terrorism'

TERROR: THE MOTIVE
The Sunday Herald, Feb 19, 2006 by Paul Hutcheon

A LEADING US academic will challenge the establishment this week when he makes the controversial claim that poverty is not the root cause of international terrorism.

Alan Krueger, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, will say suicide bombers tend to come from middle-class families. He will also argue that terrorism is directly motivated by US policy decisions.

Krueger's arguments will be made in a prestigious three-part lecture series at the London School of Economics, beginning on Tuesday. The former member of the Clinton administration will present new research on the "causes and consequences" of terrorism, which he says have been misunderstood.

One of his main findings disputes the supposed link between deprivation and terrorism. "One point I'm going to make is that the popular stereotype, from Tony Blair on down, seems to be that poverty is the root cause of terrorism. That is a very questionable presumption. The evidence doesn't point in that direction, " he told the Sunday Herald.

Krueger reached the conclusion by sampling members of Hezbollah and looking at the biographies of suicide bombers in Israel. "Overwhelmingly they were from well-off families, " he said.

He said his model is relevant to al-Qaeda (whose leader Osama bin Laden came from a wealthy family and whose main ally was a doctor) and the 9/11 attacks on New York. "It fits very well. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class or from high-income classes."

Krueger also applied his findings to the London Tube and bus bombings last July. "My vibe on the people who carried out the suicide attacks was that they were not from struggling families."

He argues that terrorists, instead of coming primarily from poor states, tend to hail from oppressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This, he says, shows that terrorists tend to be motivated by fanaticism, not poverty. "In most cases [a suicide bomber] is not someone who has nothing to live for, but someone who desperately believes in a cause."

He will also say US policies, such as the presence of troops in the Middle East, are one of the main factors behind terrorism.

"A good example is US presence in Saudi Arabia, which is a large part of the motivation for al-Qaeda. The US just had to think of suicide bombers as people who are destitute, whereas I think they are motivated by political factors.

"We have to own up to the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity is in response to policy decisions."

Krueger's research challenges the conventional wisdom that terrorism is motivated by third world conditions in Arab countries and by envy of the West. The left, particularly in Britain, has tended to argue that a root cause of Muslim anger is Palestinian poverty, an explanation that Krueger's model seems to reject.

SNP leader Alex Salmond said he agreed with the academic's analysis of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies. "Krueger is undoubtedly correct. The war on terror has been disastrously counterproductive, " he said.

Copyright c 2006 Newsquest Media Group
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Causes for Terrorism

The Causes of Terrorism
From Robert Kennedy,
http://privateschool.about.com/od/history/a/terrorism_2.htm

Terrorism runs riot in places where there is no hope. It thrives in societies which have broken down to the point where ordinary citizens decide to take the law into their own hands. Our children need to understand the root causes of terrorism and what can be done about them. They need to know that they can be a powerful force for change in the world.

Hopelessness

A society where suffering is widespread and severe is the ideal breeding ground for terrorism. Why? Because suffering creates hopelessness. When hopelessness takes hold, the sufferers are easy marks for leaders who have terrorist agenda. Examples include Hitler and the Nazis, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda.

Terrorist Leaders

History offers many examples of charismatic individuals who have been able to control entire populations to achieve their own personal goals.

In recent times Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevic, Mao Tse-Tung, Osama Bin Laden and many others have inflicted incredible pain and suffering on their peoples all the while believing totally in the correctness of their mission

Causes of Modern Terrorism

Causes of Modern Terrorism

http://wwwnew.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/terror/causes.html

Every terrorist needs a particular cause to justify the use of terror tactics both to his own psyche and to the audience he hopes reach. Most terrorists are not deranged or psychotic individuals. From their point of view, terror tactics are logical, valid activities to achieve a particular goal. These individuals do not consider themselves insane nor do they want the world to consider them insane.

The modern wave of global terrorism that began in the second half of the 20th century is rooted in specific economic, social and political grievances. The validity of these grievances is of course debatable. This page will profile origins of terrorist movements in three parts of the world—the Middle East, Europe and Latin America.

Middle East Terrorism

The current global wave of terrorism, in many ways, originated and was fueled by events in the Middle East, particularly the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Some of the world's most violent terrorist acts have been committed in the name of Palestinian self determination and the destruction of Israel.

Israel's official creation in 1948 began an intermittent conflict which lasts to this day. Palestinians maintain Israeli lands (?) were promised to them by British colonial authorities. Israel's Arab neighbors failed to destroy Israel by conventional military means, so radical Palestinians believed terror tactics were the only other choice. Even prior to Israel's formation, Jewish settlers used terrorism against British colonial authorities and Palestinian Arabs living in the area to affect the creation of a Jewish state. Consequently, Arabs reciprocated. In 1964, the major Palestinian terrorist groups formed a coalition called the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. The PLO's stated mission included the annihilation of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state. The terror escalated to a global scale after the 1967 Six Day War when Israel annexed Palestinian lands on the west bank of the Jordan River and Gaza Strip near the Sinai Peninsula.

The causes of Middle East terrorism are mainly political. The dispute is over possession of land. Palestinians considered the territory occupied by Israel rightfully theirs. Aside from the land dispute, a social element is also present in this situation. Israel is the only non-Muslim nation in the Middle East, therefore it vividly stands out as "different," or an "invader." Islam is more than just a religion to its faithful. It is a prescription for life; dictating social norms in addition to civil and criminal law. The existence of Israel is viewed as an invasion of the western world's "corrupting" influence.

To fundamentalist Muslims the West, led by the United States, is characterized by the inequity and exploitation of capitalism, a philosophy centered on the individual. Islam on the other hand, is based on a more egalitarian and group-focused philosophy. But the main reason Muslims are opposed to Western influence concerns the attractiveness of capitalism. While Marxists have attempted to paint capitalism as evil and decadent, they have failed to account for its comparative efficiency in allocating resources and generally raising living standards. Coupled with the fact that life in the West is often glamorously portrayed by the media, religious leaders fear Muslims will be corrupted by Western greed and forsake their Muslim faith. This fact is one explanation for the increase in Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East.

Fundamentalist terrorist groups like Hizballah and Hamas are infamous for their fanatical tactics, most notably suicide bombings. Religious zealots will be recruited by these groups to take explosives, either strapped to their bodies or in vehicles, and detonate those explosives, killing themselves, and destroying the assigned target. In 1983, a Hizballah suicide bomber drove the bomb-laden truck which destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon killing over 200 Marines. More recently, Hamas suicide bombers have blown-up a number of buses in Israel. The Muslim fanatics are convinced killing themselves in the process of killing their enemies is a path to martyrdom and eternal salvation.

Middle East terrorism has fueled the global wave of terrorism because a variety of terrorist groups (IRA, ETA, Japanese Red Army, Baader-Meinhof Gang, etc.) have received training and support from Palestinian terrorist groups, particularly the PLO.

European Terrorism

A number of rather small, elitist terrorist movements evolved in Europe between the late 1960's and early 1980's. Most were left-wing Marxist-Leninist or nihilist movements which grew out of the activism and student protests of the 1960's. Their motivations included economics and idealism. Western Europe suffered an economic downturn and high unemployment in the 1960's, which European Marxist scholars assailed as evidence of capitalism's failure. Graduating college students, who encountered flat labor markets, blamed governments and business leaders for the economic hardship.

Extremists in these left-wing student movements felt violence was necessary to destroy the industrialized capitalist structures they found detrimental to society. These groups were mainly composed of well educated idealistic individuals seeking to "reform" society. Examples of groups include Italy's Red Brigades (BR), West Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang (also known as the Red Army Faction) and France's Direct Action (AD). These groups wreaked havoc throughout the 1970's, targeting business and political leaders. The most notorious terrorist act was committed by the Red Brigades, when they kidnapped then murdered former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

The oldest of Europe's recent terrorist insurgencies also have far different motivations for their respective struggles. Northern Ireland's Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and Spain's Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) wish to secede from their nations.

In 1922 Ireland was granted independence from Britain with the stipulation that its six predominantly Protestant northeastern counties (known as Ulster) would remain part of the United Kingdom. Many Irish never truly accepted a division of their nation. The Catholic minority that remained in Ulster was then discriminated against in terms of employment, housing and effective political participation. Catholics launched a civil rights movement in 1968 which was violently repressed by Protestants. The stage was then set for a pattern of violence that continues today. Radical Catholic nationalists called for Ulster's secession from the U.K. and union with the Republic of Ireland.

Extremist elements of the Irish Republican Army (IRA—guerrilla group formed in 1919 to secure Ireland's independence from Britain) then split to form the PIRA, or "Provos," in 1969 and embraced terrorism, claiming IRA's tactics were too timid to be effective in reuniting Ireland.

Social, political and economic elements led to this conflict. First and foremost, economic and political discrimination led to Catholics in Ulster becoming an underclass. Second, Catholic Irishmen wanted to be reunited with the rest of the Irish nation. These factors culminated in the Irish civil rights movement and the choice to use terrorism to affect reunion.

The Basque ETA was formed in 1959 as a political movement against General Franco, the fascist leader of Spain. The movement's goal was the creation of an independent state for Spain's Basque ethnic group. The Basques have been oppressed and their culture attacked under Franco. Initially the group received a great deal of support in its anti-fascist efforts, particularly from France. But Western support waned as the ETA made greater use of terror tactics.

The ETA's struggle stemmed from political oppression the Basques had suffered, and the Spanish government's attempt to destroy their culture and assimilate them into Spanish culture. Although many Basque grievances were settled after the end of Franco's rule, the ETA vows to maintain its struggle until Basques are given a sovereign homeland.

Latin American Terrorism

Terrorism in Latin America is essentially a product of class conflict. Until recently, nearly all Latin American nations were controlled by corrupt authoritarian regimes who gave little consideration to the welfare of their people. The result—a majority of Latin Americans live in poverty. The undereducated and impoverished people were very receptive to the egalitarian Marxist, Leninist and Maoist philosophies espoused by extremists.

Nearly every Latin American nation has had, or currenlty has, an active guerrilla or terrorist insurgency. The driving force behind most of these groups has been a desire to reorganize society along socialist lines, remove foreign business interests and redistribute land and wealth.

Major Latin American terrorist groups include Peru's Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), Colombia's National Liberation Army (ELN) and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and Chile's Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR).

Click here or the image to view a video clip allegedly showing MRTA terrorists preparing to seize the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru on December 17, 1996.

Stressed Populations

Fear and Violence in Stressed Populations
Stress, Violence and Peace in the Balkans
Dai Williams, 27th April 1999
Courtesy of The Eos Life-Work Resource Centre

Williams explains, that, “Stress arises when the combination of internal and external pressures exceeds the individual's resources to cope with their situation. Stress may develop from chronic (ongoing) or acute (sudden) pressures. As general pressures increase on a population - economic, environmental or political - then a greater proportion of individuals are likely to cross the threshold from anxiety to panic or violence.

Physical and mental behaviour in the stress zone is determined by the fight or flight response, when threat or fear triggers an adrenaline reaction. Civilised cultures try to suppress the fight response or channel aggression into other activities e.g. sport. But it is latent in most people, restrained only by codes of social behaviour. In war (or criminal) situations these codes and restraints break down, potentially liberating great brutality, or are redefined to make violence a duty.”

The psychological climate of a community or population determines what percentage of the population may resort to organised or mindless violence. If a population is already stressed every additional source of stress increases the probability and number of individuals that will become violent. For example an individual whose relative has been killed or maimed, is more likely to take violent action themselves. This has been found in research into the background of terrorists in Northern Ireland. As these pressures increase then normal social and moral restraints become weaker.

These patterns indicate that violence is a last resort in a stressed population. The existence of violence is a warning that the population is already over-stressed for reasons that are usually obvious.

If violence is the only way to restrain violent individuals or groups it must be very carefully limited. Collateral damage is psychological as well as physical, increasing fear and the potential for anger and violence in a much larger population. The key task in peacemaking is to reduce and minimise all avoidable sources of stress - military, economic, environmental as well as political.

Terrorism: Underlying Causes

Terrorism: Underlying Causes
http://www.flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Terrorism-Causes/Terrorism-Causes_main.htm

Terrorism has blasted its way into the world’s headlines. In an age of information overload it’s easy and convenient to accept the news of current events at face value. It takes a good deal more effort to search for deeper understanding of complex political issues, especially those affecting only foreign countries. Condemning terrorism doesn’t eliminate it, and decades of counter-terrorism programs haven’t stopped it. Perhaps what’s missing is a fundamental understanding of political violence.

The primary goal of terrorism is to attract attention. In 1993, Islamist extremists bombed New York’s World Trade Center, capturing immediate, but short-lived attention, before people lost interest. Undeterred, they did it again with devastating results. In response, endless resources have been allocated to defending the homeland, launching an international war on terror and preparing for the next event, which experts predict could involve weapons of mass destruction.

The terrorists have succeeded. They have created a climate of fear. They have imposed a huge financial burden impeding economic recovery. They have provoked the United States to change its national security policy to condone pre-emptive war, and they’ve helped push America into war. When and how does it all end?

No one yet knows the answers. Some of the possibilities are horrific. If the deadly consequences of terror are as likely as some predict, and if we are going to eliminate terrorism, we must start at the beginning by understanding the underlying causes of political violence.

Much of the background and many of the insights for this briefing come from a uniquely valuable book: The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon W. Allport, (Addison Wesley 1979). This book is a true classic, as revealing today as when it was first published in 1954. We are all familiar with “those people” and what people say about “them.” They’re lazy, dirty; they breed like rabbits; they’re uneducated and uncouth; they stick to themselves; and they’re sneaky and can’t be trusted. Yes, you know who we’re talking about – the “out-group.” They could be black, or white, red or yellow. They could be Christians, Jews, Hindu, or Muslim. They could be from this country or that country. It doesn’t matter.



As Allport explains, in-groups always make the same observations and criticisms of out-groups. These prejudices lay the foundation for deeper future problems. Oftentimes such prejudices appear true, not because of a people’s nationality, or religion, but because of their circumstances. Those who are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged are never acceptable to the elite, or in-group, unless, perhaps, as servants. The underlying causes of political violence and terrorism begin long ago and faraway. Yet they remain a part of our lives today…

Group Identity – People have an instinctive need to establish an identity. They are born into a family and naturally share that family’s identity in terms of name, relatives, clan, ethnicity, language, religion and culture. These associations form the basis of our existence and establish our identity. Through association and education we learn and adopt the values and behaviors typical of our group – our in-group. Over time, people realize that there are other groups to which they do belong and with which they don’t identify – out-groups. Invariably people recognize that there is an “us” and a “them,” that there are noticeable differences between groups, and develop loyalty to their in-group. People naturally take pride in their in-group and usually view their own group as superior. These basic group differences set the stage for competition and conflict.

Inter-Group Dynamics – As groups interact with one another, patterns of cooperative and competitive behavior develop. The result of competition is that one groups wins and benefits, while the other loses and suffers. Each group then rationalizes the results, either reasserting the reasons for their success, or failure, which entails rejecting the out-group. Gordon Allport categorizes the forms of rejective behavior in a scale of intensity:

Verbal Rejection – derisive comments, put-downs, ethnic (out-group) jokes
Avoidance – forms of self-imposed or voluntary segregation, sticking with our own kind
Discrimination – denying equality to others solely because of affiliation with an out-group
Physical Attack – personal physical attacks against out-group members, rioting, lynching, attacking homes, etc.
Extermination – concerted attacks designed to force out-groups to move away, or to actually exterminate the subject group – pogroms, massacres, ethnic cleansing and genocide

Over long periods of time group differences and rejective behaviors often become deeply ingrained and more severe behaviors have led to protracted conflict and hatreds between groups. These historic conflicts may be obscured by political changes or current events but remain as latent sources of renewed conflict as circumstances change, for better or worse, and opportunities arise.

Relative Deprivation – Over time, groups often establish a pattern of dominance that may be based on group size, specialization (farmers vs. merchants), discrimination, or external influences (colonial power favoritism). The relative differences between group successes may not be a problem unless it is seen as the result of unfair, unequal or discriminatory distortions. Where a dominant group imposes a system that results in disadvantage for a particular out-group it eventually invites demands for reform. Such demands usually come from out-group members who have become better educated and aware of the inequality that frustrates their efforts to advance and prosper according to their abilities.

The out-group may be at a disadvantage in education, living standards, job opportunity, job advancement, political influence, or ability to express its group identity, language or culture.

In many colonial situations, the European colonial powers favored specific minority groups as part of the divide and conquer strategy. They used these favored minorities as surrogates to help maintain order and dominance over much larger majority populations. When the colonists withdrew after World War I and World War II, little or nothing was done to establish more democratic governing systems, or to redress the relative disadvantages that had been created.

In other cases, the ruling systems, monarchies or regimes that were left in power continued to exploit out-groups for their own benefit, or failed to move their countries forward in the global marketplace. In either case, out-groups developed heightened expectations for their future but remained frustrated at their inability to change their disadvantaged situation.

Discrimination - A memorandum of the United Nations defines the issue of discrimination:

"Discrimination includes any conduct based on a distinction made on grounds if natural or social category, which have no relation either to individual capacities or merits, or to the concrete behavior of the person.” Among the forms of discrimination officially practiced in various parts of the world, the United Nations lists the following:

Unequal recognition before the law (general denial of rights to particular groups)
Inequality of personal security (interference, arrest, disparagement because of group membership)
Inequality in freedom of movement and residence (ghettoes, forbidden travel, prohibited areas, curfew restrictions)
Inequality in protection of freedom of thought, conscience, religion
Inequality in the enjoyment of free communication
Inequality in the right of peaceful association
Inequality in treatment of those born out of wedlock
Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to marry and found a family
Inequality in the enjoyment of free choice of employment
Inequality in the regulation and treatment o£ ownership inequality in the protection of authorship
Inequality of opportunity for education or the development of ability or talent
Inequality of opportunity for sharing the benefits of culture inequality in services rendered (health protection, recreational facilities, housing)
Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to nationality inequality in the right to participate in government
Inequality in access to public office forced labor, slavery, special taxes, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks, sumptuary laws, and public libel of groups

Reform Movements – In situations where out-groups have access to a political system reform movements often emerge demanding changes. Under monarchies and authoritarian regimes there is rarely the ability to petition the state for reform and repressive regimes are often quick to quell any such movements. The rise of a reform movement inevitably raises expectations of the out-group.The initial reaction to reforms demands is most often to reject the demands as unfounded – to deny the existence of the problem and blame the situation on prejudiced characterizations of the out-group. (“The reason they’re poor is that all out-groupers are lazy.”) A typical theme is that, “we don’t have a problem, they do.”

Even if a state recognizes a demand as legitimate, specific interest groups that will oppose reform from fear that it will dilute their position of power and advantage. It’s often said that no one has ever given up power or wealth voluntarily. Such interest groups are easily provoked into a strong reactionary response targeting either, or both, the reformers group, or the government. The emergence of these fear-driven reactionary forces is perhaps the most potent factor is a cascading plunge into violent political conflict. The state is placed in the position of choosing the lesser of two evils, confronting the weaker of two adversaries, and pursuing a course that ensures its own interests and immediate survival.

Not surprisingly, reform movements often meet with limited, if any, success. The greater the institutionalized discrimination, inequality and injustice, the lower the prospects for reform and the greater the chances for eventual violence. Rejection of reform demands heightens out-group frustration and strengthens the arguments of militants and their call for decisive action.

Dissident Movements – It is not human nature to go quietly into the night. When governments reject reasonable reform, they invite more aggressive dissent. And when reactionary interests enter the fray, attitudes harden, demands escalate and prospects for resolution diminish quickly. As reformers become dissenters, more militant leaders may take up the call, organizing demonstrations and protests. These activities are designed to raise out-group support and recruit participants to pressure and threaten the state and its dominant in-groups. There is an inevitable struggle between dissenters between non-violent protest and the classic revolutionary tactic of provoking the state to violent repression as a means to anger and inflame people against the injustice.

Dissident movements face three obstacles: ignorance, apathy and inertia. Hence their objectives are to inform people of the problems and motivate them to take a position and join the movement. Public protests are designed to attract publicity and attention, but it is difficult to sustain an active movement unless it can show progress and inspire hope. Where government controls the media, or there is little means for public exposure the prospects are dim.

The rise of dissident movements creates ever more visceral fear within privileged in-groups and is as likely to provoke reactionary violence from counter-demonstrators as from the state. As fear and tension rises, violence is but a stone’s throw away; all that is need is a precipitating incident, whether intentional or not, to ignite the cycle of violence.

Political Violence – Once violence erupts, the voices of reason and moderation become muted, militants fight for control and rogue elements, whether dissident or reactionary can influence events. A key result of the transition to violence is to eliminate apathy. People are pushed from the fence of indecision and forced to take a position or join the fray.

Political violence requires there be a target for attacks and the choices are limited - people or things, government or private. The obvious first targets of the militants are the repressive state’s buildings, facilities, symbols and security forces. Ironically, the state’s assets are better protected than the community they are designed to protect, which serves to redirect violence toward the private sector. As violence breaks out, threatened in-groups are often quick to organize for counter-attacks and their targets are limited to out-group individuals, their homes and businesses. Attacks against these targets can readily be defined as terrorism, but because they support the state, they are rarely condemned for what they are.

As dissidents evolve from militants, to armed insurgents, they quickly find themselves out-numbered and out-gunned by increasingly aggressive security forces and caught in a vice between them and reactionary paramilitary or vigilante groups. At this point, the burden is on the state – either they will act to quell the civil discord through negotiation, or through force. Unfortunately, most of today’s current conflicts and resulting terrorism result from a cooperative effort – a joint venture – between the state and its in-groups and out-groups.

In real wars, we‘ve all become familiar with apologies for civilian casualties known as “collateral damage.” Violent political groups have no such excuse; once a bomb, or stray bullet kills an innocent civilian, the perpetrators are branded as terrorists, and as government spokespeople and politicians have said a million times, “once a terrorist always a terrorist.”

This is a broad, generic description of the conflict development process and there are a myriad of variations and exceptions in specific cases. The classic example of the process is the conflict in Northern Ireland. The UK endured nearly 30 years of conflict in Ulster at a cost of some 3,500 lives and tens of billions in economic cost – all of which might have been avoided by agreeing to rather modest human rights demands that have since been granted anyway.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a number of similarities and even though there was no government authority to consider reforms, Great Britain and the U.N. could have taken up this role. Again, the economic and human costs have been staggering with no resolution yet in sight. The situation in Sri Lanka also includes many elements of the process, as do conflicts in Spain, Turkey, Cyprus and elsewhere.

A contrasting perspective is available by analyzing the U.S. experience with the 1960’s civil rights movement and Viet Nam anti-war protests. Often forgotten is that America experienced a devastating Civil War that demonstrated the compelling need to deal with civil discord.

During the civil rights conflict in the South, the U.S. Government sent National Guard troops, not to repress the civil rights demonstrators, but to protect them and to enforce the rule of law. Such actions are unparalleled. Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations became increasingly violent and fractured American society. At Kent State University National Guard troop shot and killed student demonstrators in 1971. This tragic escalation helped sober the nation, restrained protestors and spurred the government to commit to withdrawal of US forces from Viet Nam.

Myths about Terrorism

Myths about terrorism

Shashi Tharoor

While ending poverty will not end terror, it will make terrorism that much more difficult to promote.

Complex issue: Familes and friends of 9/11 victims at Ground Zero. One of the more interesting debates that has arisen since the spectreof terrorism invaded the global consciousness just over six years ago (on "9/11") is the one about poverty and terror. Some have argued,perhaps a bit too simplisticall y, that terrorism is caused by poverty and that the eradication of poverty will lead to the elimination of terror. Certain development advocates have been particularly assiduous in purveying this line, no doubt in reaction to the even more simplistic discourse of those who argue that terrorism is a form of evil, divorced from any understandable "root cause", that must be ruthlessly stamped out in a "global war". Repudiation was bound to come sooner or later from the growing band of scholars who study such things. It now has.

Poverty not the cause

The American economist Alan B. Krueger of Princeton and Czech Professor Jitka Maleckovaì of Charles University in Prague have studied this question in the context of Palestinian support for terrorism and established, from a diligent perusal of public opinion polls, that the support for terror attacks on Israel is lower amongst the poor and unemployed people than amongst the relatively better off Palestinians (students, professionals, merchants). The same is true, they showed, for supporters of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and of the extremist, even racist Gush Emunim in Israel. So, when doctors and engineers participated in the failed bomb assaults in London and Glasgow this summer, Krueger was not surprised. He told the Wall Street Journal: "Each time we have one of these attacks and thebackgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperatelypoor. But this misconception doesn't die."

My London-based Indian friend, Salil Tripathi, a thoughtful analyst of such issues, concurs. He wrote in the New Statesman: "Some 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 came from wealthy families in aprosperous country — Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden's background was
famously opulent; his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri is an affluent paediatrician. There are many good reasons to eliminate poverty. But we should not expect terrorism to decline as a result."

And yet — I am tempted to say, "not so fast, my friends."Beyond simple connections

Of course eliminating dire poverty will not, in itself, solve our problems in this age of terror. The pilots of 9/11 were not poor; not only were they educated and reasonably well off, their pilots' licenses could have guaranteed them comfortable middle-class lives. But those like me who focus on the factors that make terrorism possible are not drawing so simple a causal connection as to suggest that poverty causes terrorism. My own argument is a little more complicated. It is, first, that poverty helps create the conditions that provide succour and sustenance to terrorists, who can scarcely work in isolation: they need support, bases, safe havens, supplies, allies, and they find these amongst a general population that is broadly alienated from the world order the terrorists are attacking, an order that denies them hope. Yes, it is not just poverty at work here. Those who support, applaud and orchestrate terrorism are not driven solely by a sense of economic injustice. A sense of oppression, of exclusion, of marginalisation, also gives rise to extremism, and this comes particularly to people who see no other hope of overturning the political dispensation that alienates them.

Second, terrorists need a rationale for their actions — a narrative of injustice to inspire their pawns, the suicide bombers and their ilk, and to win broad sympathy for their cause. That rationale is most easily found in tales of poverty and suffering seemingly created by an unjust world order. If we can eliminate poverty, we would significantly dent that rationale, and dilute the support base for terrorism.

It is sadly true that other factors will continue to spawn terrorists. My good friend Nasra Hassan, a Pakistani former colleague of mine at the U.N., wrote a remarkable article for the New Yorker in 2001 in which she suggested that indignity, political humiliation and a sense of desperation about the possibility of bringing about political change were the main motivations for would-be Palestinian suicide bombers. (She came to this conclusion by interviewing several terror-recruits in Israeli prisons.) Terrorism is a weapon of asymmetrical warfare; it is the instrument of the weak against the implacable power of a State system that enrages them. It has been used by anarchists in 19th-century Russia, Irish nationalists in 20th-century Britain, Basque separatists in 21st-century Spain; and we have not, I fear, heard the last of its use by the advocates of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. A goal to work for

So ending poverty will not end terror. But it will make terrorism that much more difficult to promote. If we can create a world in which all people have access to — at a minimum — the opportunity to live beyond starvation, to receive an education, and to have realistic hopes for a
better future, including the possibility of some say in their own political arrangements, we might be able to stop the lugubrious litany of reflections on terror each September 11. That would be a positive goal to work for, in India and around the world.


This article appeared in the Hindu - 09/28/07.
Shashi Tharoor was the former under-secretary general of the United Nations and was the runner up for the Secretary General's position.
www.shashitharoor.com