Al-Qaeda in Africa (merged thread)

[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