The idea that poverty breeds terror appears obvious; how could it be otherwise? And people as different as the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Pakistan's leader, Pervez Musharraf, have also noted a link between poverty and terrorism.Read the whole thing. I found a few points in particular to be very intersting:
In fact, there is now robust evidence that there is no such link. That does not mean, however, that economics is irrelevant.
First, to the question of poverty. Of the 50 poorest countries in the world (see list at right) only Afghanistan (and perhaps Bangladesh and Yemen) has much experience in terrorism, global or domestic.
The freest countries experienced little terrorism; and the same was true for the most oppressed. It was in the middle - where politics was unsettled and evolving and governments are often weak - that suffered the most.I think that's something that's missed when people discuss situations such as Iraq. Yes, there was little of what we refer to as "terrorism" under Saddam Hussein; he ruled with an iron fist. And yes, there's now quite a bit of it, in Iraq's unsettled state. But it's a progression from one extreme to the other: Living under such a regime to living a life of freedom. We need to keep it moving along that path - a long-term, not short-term, world view.
There's more, but it's a bit busy here today. Check it out.
"The idea that poverty breeds terror appears obvious; how could it be otherwise? "
ReplyDeleteThis sentence shows you where the CNN journalist comes from, to him (her?) its obvious. To others, it was never that "obvious" and should have never been obvious as soon as it was discovered who was in those planes that hit the towers.
I think the idea that poverty breeds terrorism was pretty much discredited by the 9/11 hijackers. There is certainly a lot of truth to the idea that terrorism breeds well in a place like today's Iraq, where the government is impotent.
ReplyDeleteBut how does that explain the number of terrorists from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most stable dictatorships in the Middle East? And why are Muslims so much more likely to be terrorists than, say, South Americans?
Empirically, it seems that fanaticism combined with a domineering ideology (for which the treatment of women is a good proxy) is what causes terrorism. Even among Jews (l'havdil!) you see a negative correlation between feminism and the degree to which violence is looked to as a solution.
Oh, and obviously, if your group is powerful enough, you don't need terrorism; you can just go to war.
Avrom - Well put.
ReplyDeleteJA - I think the idea that poverty breeds terrorism was pretty much discredited by the 9/11 hijackers.
Agreed. However, a good, strong chunk on the left keep repeating it anyway.
There is certainly a lot of truth to the idea that terrorism breeds well in a place like today's Iraq, where the government is impotent.
Another good reason to strengthen it!
But how does that explain the number of terrorists from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most stable dictatorships in the Middle East?
Isn't that the point? It's very stable, it is decently wealthy... etc.
Empirically, it seems that fanaticism combined with a domineering ideology (for which the treatment of women is a good proxy) is what causes terrorism.
Agreed. Interesting proxy - sounds like it might be true.
Oh, and obviously, if your group is powerful enough, you don't need terrorism; you can just go to war.
Agreed. Just look at Iran's threats. :P
Another good reason to strengthen it!
ReplyDeleteHey, as long as we're dreaming, we might as well turn them into secular humanists while we're at it! ;-)
Why would we want to do that!? :)
ReplyDeleteFine, I'll settle on Modern Orthodox Jews. Or Quakers. Quakers would be great.
ReplyDeleteQuakers? Trying to kill off the human population?
ReplyDeleteNot Shakers, Quakers.
ReplyDelete