Al-Qaeda in Africa (merged thread)

[KingJaja]

Poverty is of course a huge problem and a huge issue, but any proposed causative link between poverty and terrorism is strained at best. And while it's easy to point to poverty as a problem, it's a good deal harder to do anything about it. Development aid simply doesn't work. It doesn't win hearts and minds, it doesn't have much impact on poverty, and it certainly doesn't do anything about terrorism. It allows donors to feel good about themselves and say nice things about themselves, and it keeps the aid industry afloat, so you can say it's doing what it's intended to do... but let's not pretend that it's doing anything abut poverty.

You are wrong. Most terrorists are poor.

To access the Western World you must be both financially stable and educated. So the terrorists that attack the West tend to be middle class. On the other hand, most terrorist activity in the developing World (where the majority of terrorist activity occurs anyway) is carried out by poor people. Nigeria's first suicide bomber was a roadside mechanic and suicide bombers in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan tend to be poor.

Finally, Osama bin Laden's flavour of Islam is not the traditional Islam of the merchant class, it is the Islam of desperate young men from slums. That it was co-opted by the middle class does not change its primary audience.

It all boils down to poverty.

[Bill Moore]

KingJaja,

I believe you have it wrong when you confuse poverty as the cause for terrorism, because if that was true, if we eradicated poverty there would be no terrorism. In Iraq and Afghanistan you are confusing insurgents with terrorists, but hey our forces do that all the time. You make a good point though about local terrorists compared to transnational terrorists, but I still doubt poverty is the cause.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...76100500351318

This research note explores aspects of the demand for terrorism using data from the Pew Research Center. With these data from 7,849 adult respondents persons within 14 Muslim countries, this article explores who supports terrorism. It is shown that females, younger persons, and those who believe Islam is under threat are more likely to support terrorism. Very poor respondents and those who believe that religious leaders should play a larger role in politics are less likely to support terrorism than others. Because these affects vary throughout the countries studies, it is argued that interventions must be highly tailored, using detailed demographic and psychographic data.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/7371

The experts have maintained for a long time that poverty does not cause terrorism and prosperity does not cure it. In the world’s 50 poorest countries there is little or no terrorism. A study by scholars Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reached the conclusion that the terrorists are not poor people and do not come from poor societies. A Harvard economist has shown that economic growth is closely related to a society’s ability to manage conflicts. More recently, a study of India has demonstrated that terrorism in the subcontinent has occurred in the most prosperous (Punjab) and most egalitarian (Kashmir, with a poverty ratio of 3.5 compared with the national average of 26 percent) regions and that, on the other hand, the poorest regions such as North Bihar have been free of terrorism. In the Arab countries (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also in North Africa), the terrorists originated not in the poorest and most neglected districts but hailed from places with concentrations of radical preachers. The backwardness, if any, was intellectual and cultural — not economic and social.

These findings, however, have had little impact on public opinion (or on many politicians), and it is not difficult to see why. There is the general feeling that poverty and backwardness with all their concomitants are bad

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/povterr.pdf

The Harvard study

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

After controlling for the level of political rights, fractionalization, and geography, Abadie concludes that per capita national income is not significantly associated with terrorism. He finds, though, that lower levels of political rights are linked to higher levels of terrorism countries with the highest levels of political rights are also the countries that suffer the lowest levels of terrorism. However, the relationship between the level of political rights and terrorism is not a simple linear one. Countries in an intermediate range of political rights experience a greater risk of terrorism than countries either with a very high degree of political rights or than severely authoritarian countries with very low levels of political rights.

What shocks me is that our COIN doctrine is focused on development instead of the actual factors that drive the conflict. As one academic terrorism expert stated, our development efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in providing more money for the terrorists and insurgents, but did little to alleviate the true causes of the conflict.

Where you may be right, is the secondary effects of poverty, which could be political polarization and greater social tension if a particular group is poor due to discrimination.

[KingJaja]

I believe you have it wrong when you confuse poverty as the cause for terrorism, because if that was true, if we eradicated poverty there would be no terrorism. In Iraq and Afghanistan you are confusing insurgents with terrorists, but hey our forces do that all the time. You make a good point though about local terrorists compared to transnational terrorists, but I still doubt poverty is the cause.

I don't agree with any of these reports.

I live in Nigeria with 75 million Muslims and I can tell you that the Muslim parts of Nigeria where poverty and illiteracy rates are the highest are the most prone to terrorism. That is a fact.

Of course the most vocal exponents of terrorism tend to be from the middle class, because they tend to have the best communication skills. But the soil in which terrorism thrives is poverty and frustration.

Poverty and frustration triggered both terrorism in the Niger Delta and in Nigeria's North East. The Odua People's Congress in the South West has carpenters and motor park touts as its rank and file, but its mouth piece is a medical doctor.

[KingJaja]

Eradicating poverty and emphasising education will not eliminate terrorism, but it will drastically reduce it. The Sahel Region (an area larger in size than the USA) is on track to be a major terrorist breeding ground, if poverty and education are not taken seriously.

The transition from madrassa student / almajiri (student of an itinerant religious scholar) to hired political thug (for less than $10 a day) to suicide bomber can occur (and is occurring) extremely rapidly in Northern Nigeria. On the other hand, the transition from engineering student to suicide bomber takes much longer and is much rarer.

Secondly, there is no clear division between terrorism and insurgencies. It is generally accepted that poverty and frustration drives insurgencies and insurgents use terrorism as a tactic.

[Dayuhan]

Poverty may well be associated with insurgency and the domestic use of terror tactics by insurgents... but that's hardly something that the US or the West need to be concerned with. At the end of the day the solution to insurgency - and thus domestic terrorism - in Nigeria is drastic reforms in the Nigerian government. In the absence of such reform, western attempts to alleviate poverty will only worsen the problem by allowing the government to avoid confronting the need for change.

The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

[KingJaja]

The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

Exactly. My fears about terrorism are not your fears about terrorism. So when we talk about terrorism, we are talking about two different things.

I really don't fear that some engineering student from Bradford will blow me or my children up, but I fear that some poor, uneducated, suicidal bigot will.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by KingJaja,

Exactly. My fears about terrorism are not your fears about terrorism. So when we talk about terrorism, we are talking about two different things.

I really don't fear that some engineering student from Bradford will blow me or my children up, but I fear that some poor, uneducated, suicidal bigot will

.

Point taken.

[Chowing]

I have wrestled with where to jump back into this discussion. This whole discussion around "cause" is complex, regional, and, so far, without a solution, yet it remains one of the current, major issues to be solved on the planet. Kaplan's chaos and anarchy either reign or are on the horizon in many parts of the world. Terrorists are right in the middle of it.

I do know from experience here in the states, that many of our home grown terrorists came from families with money and they were highly educated, from the Weather Underground, SLA, and others. There is always the "redneck" factor that is more based on racial hatred then against the seats of power. However, none of these home grown terrorist gained much, if any, popular support.

Terrorists gain popular support where poverty exists. They promise aid or a better way of life to the poor and blame the mess on the seats of power. The poor are looking for hope and grab onto it. These terrorists are very persuasive. There arguments make more sense in the face of poverty. When the terrorists have popular or regional support they can stay hidden longer, get the supplies they need and recruit many many more people into their ranks.

Poverty may well be associated with insurgency and the domestic use of terror tactics by insurgents... but that's hardly something that the US or the West need to be concerned with.

I guess this is where my global citizenship comes in. Where people suffer, I should be concerned and do what I can to be part of the solution. The other side of the story, a reality, is that the US will be impacted soon or later by the unrest that terrorists are a part of.

At the end of the day the solution to insurgency - and thus domestic terrorism - in Nigeria is drastic reforms in the Nigerian government. In the absence of such reform, western attempts to alleviate poverty will only worsen the problem by allowing the government to avoid confronting the need for change.

We can help alleviate poverty by not being concerned only about our interests. That view of the world has only heightened and in some cases caused the poverty in some regions of the world. Africa has some of the largest deposits of natural resources, we in the West gobble them up and pay scant attention to the poor in the very regions that give us the natural resources. That all sound harsh, but it is part of the reality. Right now, there are westerners and Chinese as well buying up large tracts of land and water to aid the West and China, not those who have the land and are in poverty.

Granted, the traditional and most often used standard practices for alleviating poverty have not worked. Most of it has gone on with little or no dialog with local people.

The US and the west need to worry about terrorism directed at the US and the west, and that doesn't seem reliably connected to poverty. Moot point in any event, as the US and the West can't really do much about poverty in Africa. That's a function of African governance and it needs to be addressed by Africans.

Agreed. That does not mean that outside help is useless. There are ways of empowering people, without leading the movement.

[Dayuhan]

This whole discussion around "cause" is complex, regional, and, so far, without a solution, yet it remains one of the current, major issues to be solved on the planet. Kaplan's chaos and anarchy either reign or are on the horizon in many parts of the world. Terrorists are right in the middle of it.

It seems to me that chaos and anarchy have receded substantially in much of the world, and that many parts of the world that were once widely threatened by them - notably east Asia and Latin America are now relatively stable, after decades of chaos during the Cold War.

Terrorists gain popular support where poverty exists. They promise aid or a better way of life to the poor and blame the mess on the seats of power. The poor are looking for hope and grab onto it. These terrorists are very persuasive. There arguments make more sense in the face of poverty. When the terrorists have popular or regional support they can stay hidden longer, get the supplies they need and recruit many many more people into their ranks.

I think it's unproductive and possibly dangerous to lump "terrorists" into a single category. In many places "terrorists" are insurgents adopting terror as a tactic to drive their struggle against governments that have often earned the opposition. It's very difficult for an outside power to address this without taking sides in a domestic quarrel, and I think in virtually all such cases the US and allies should minimize involvement.

Then you have what might be called "pure terrorists", where terrorism is not adopted as a reaction to oppressive government, but is adopted in a proactive effort to impose an internationalist agenda. That's the terrorism the US and other outside parties need to worry about, and the link between that type of terrorism and poverty remains very tenuous.

I guess this is where my global citizenship comes in. Where people suffer, I should be concerned and do what I can to be part of the solution. The other side of the story, a reality, is that the US will be impacted soon or later by the unrest that terrorists are a part of.

Individual commitment may be admirable, but I think an official US policy of pushing in and trying to "fix" these environments would do more harm than good.

We can help alleviate poverty by not being concerned only about our interests. That view of the world has only heightened and in some cases caused the poverty in some regions of the world. Africa has some of the largest deposits of natural resources, we in the West gobble them up and pay scant attention to the poor in the very regions that give us the natural resources. That all sound harsh, but it is part of the reality. Right now, there are westerners and Chinese as well buying up large tracts of land and water to aid the West and China, not those who have the land and are in poverty.

I have doubts about this. Certainly there are things the West can do. If the US and Europe would abandon agricultural subsidies and trade obstructions designed to promote their own exports and obstruct imports from the developing world, for example, that would certainly help.

Ultimately, though, the problem is not that the West is concerned only with their interests, the problem is that the elites who govern Africa are concerned only with their interests. Paying attention to the poor is not reasonably the responsibility of an outside investor: they're supposed to negotiate a deal with the government that gives the government a reasonable share of the profits that will let the government do its job. Foreign parties, official or private, cannot be expected to take on governance responsibilities.

Granted, the traditional and most often used standard practices for alleviating poverty have not worked. Most of it has gone on with little or no dialog with local people.

I think they fail because they are not considered consistent with the interest of local governing elites, who do everything in power to preserve their own control.

Agreed. That does not mean that outside help is useless. There are ways of empowering people, without leading the movement.

Maybe not useless, but not a game-changer either. Possibly 30+ years around the aid industry have left me excessively cynical.

I live in an indigenous community in a developing country. We've a constant stream of well-meaning pinks coming through with various plans to empower us. Most leave with no visible impact, though they always seem to leave feeling very good about themselves. Ultimately you can't empower people, they have to empower themselves. Unfor