UN Security Council Chamber by Patrick Gruban
On Monday the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning kidnapping by terrorist and calling for an end to appeasing terrorists through ransom payments or political concessions. UK Ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, said of the resolution, "it is... imperative that we take steps to ensure that kidnap for ransom is no longer perceived as a lucrative business model and that we eliminate it as a source of terrorist financing." The resolution does not create any new legal obligations but it does call on Member States to encourage the private sector to adopt relevant guidelines and good practices for responding to terrorist kidnappings without paying ransoms.
I can understand why the UN would want to adopt such a measure; the UN estimates that Islamist extremist groups have garnered $105 million in ransom money in the last three and a half years. Starving terrorist groups of this source of income would presumably have a significant impact on their operations. And yet I have my doubts regarding this resolution.
The most obvious flaw of the resolution is that no one actually knows whether or not cutting ransom payments will be an effective strategy at countering terrorist activity. For decades, the western, liberal democracies have been staunchly following the creed that we should not negotiate with terrorists for fear of encouraging further terrorism. But terrorist activity persists and no one actually knows whether refusing to negotiate with terrorists has done anything to curtail terrorist attacks. Non-negotiation is not necessarily the best strategy, it's just that we can't think of anything else to do.
In his book, Globalisation and War, Barkawi argues that a refusal to negotiate with terrorists simply creates a spiral of terrorist attack and harsh reprisal which de-legitimises negotiation and compromise and inspires more violence. Barkawi suggests instead that to counter terror, an effective strategy requires a combination of political and coercive means. Engagement and compromise with those the terrorists claim to represent whittles away at the legitimacy of terror, undermining the incentive to carry out terrorist attacks. We need a softer, 'hearts and minds' approach to terrorism.
A second reservation I have towards this resolution is that it shifts the balance of responsibility away from governments and international bodies and towards the unfortunate individuals who face the horrific decision of whether they should fund terrorists or leave their loved ones to suffer in captivity. It seems unfair that those taken as hostages, and their friends and family back home, are left to suffer at the hands of terrorists because national governments and international organisations can't think of a better method to counter terrorism.
Barkawi may not be correct. Maybe negotiation, compromise and dialogue will do nothing to stop terrorist activity. But I don't think that we should just blindly follow the same policy that we have pursued for years, to little effect, without at least considering alternatives.
I recently came across this Slate article
discussing comments made by President Obama, when he was still a Senator, about
the causes of terrorism. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Obama argued that
extremist violence “grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance.” The Slate
article gives a really good analysis of these claims and the wider academic debate
surrounding the idea that terrorism is caused by poverty and ignorance - go give it a read.
I think this is a really interesting topic
of debate! Terrorism is often associated with poverty because it is compared
with crime. The extensive literature on the economics of crime offers some
reason to believe that poverty and lack of education are linked to illegal
activity. However violence crimes, such as murder, are generally unrelated to
economic opportunities. And anyway, terrorism isn’t really comparable to crime.
The Slate article mentions the fantastic
article by Krueger and Maleckova (2002) entitled ‘Education, Poverty and Terrorism’. In
their article, Krueger and Maleckova argue that terrorism may actually offer
greater benefits for those with more education. Well-educated individuals may
participate disproportionately in terrorist groups if they think they will
assume leadership positions or if they identify more strongly with the goals of
the terrorist organisation than less educated individuals.
It’s also important to consider the demand
side of the equation, not just supply. This is a point elaborated on by Pape in
his fascinating article ‘The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’. Terrorist organisations
may prefer better-educated individuals since a high level of educational attainment
is probably a signal of one’s commitment to a cause as well as determination and
ability to prepare for, and carry out, an assignment.
Krueger and Maleckova also make the
excellent point that there needs to be a distinction between suicide terrorists
and other terrorists. Suicide bombers are obviously less motivated by personal
gain (although promises of larger payments to their families may be a factor)
and thus their primary motivation derives from their passionate support for
their movement. Eradicating poverty and improving education is unlikely to
change these feelings.
This is just a brief summary of the debate.
You should really check out the Slate article, then click on the links and read
all of those articles too! When you’re done reading all those articles… check
out the books and articles below…
Chapter 5 of Barkawi (2005) 'Globalisation and
War' has an interesting discussion on terrorism
Pape (2003) 'The Strategic Logic of Suicide
Terrorism'
Crenshaw (2007) 'Terrorism and Global
Security'
Here are some interesting things I've read this week...
- The winners of the 2013 Sony World Photography Awards have been announced. Check out the winners for the various categories here. I think my favourite is Ilya Pitalev's in the Professional Current Affairs category (photo 8) - I like the juxtaposition between the discordant gaggle of school girls and the soldier standing ramrod straight.
- An interesting article looking at our differing perceptions of acts of terrorism vs. shootings.
- Want to be reminded of how awesome people can be? Check out this map of people expressing thanks for random acts of kindness in London.
- Hate terrorism but love trees? Read about the people planting trees in the Sahel to fight terrorism.
- To keep up with online competition, shops are turning to ever more sophisticated methods of collecting information on our shopping habits. The whole thing feels awfully
Orwellian. Then again, is it so bad for shops to gauge customer tastes and
preferences if they can then provide more desirable
products or a better shopping experience?
- Here’s a discussion of a longitudinal psychology study looking at the factors contributing to personal happiness and lifelong wellbeing. It is probably one of the most fascinating articles I have read in a really long time. Some of the conclusions seem self-evident e.g. strong social relationships, more than wealth or intelligence, correlate to personal wellbeing. Other conclusions are a bit more surprising e.g. physical activity in college years is a greater predictor of mental health than physical health in later life. The article ends, of course, with a discussion of whether happiness is something that can be judged scientifically or medically. Beautifully summed in this quote:
“Their lives were too human for science, too beautiful for numbers, too sad for diagnosis and too immortal for bound journals.”
It’s a long article but definitely worth a read.
