Terrorism and development -- what is the link?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the link between development and terrorism lately, and where (if anywhere) the UN machinery can fit into the fight against terror. (I ought to say I use the phrase “fight against terror” knowing its clumsy and inaccurate. I was always one of those who thought the whole concept of a “war on terrorism” was odd, as if after Pearl Harbor the US had declared “a war on torpedo bombers.”   But I’ll use it here anyway.) President Obama recently gave a statement linking climate change, poverty, and terrorism; Bernie Sanders did much the same thing. Their logic was clear enough: climate change will lead to more poverty and dislocation, which leads desperate people to turn to extreme political groups, which leads to violence and terrorism. I assume thrown in there is also the potential for conflict over natural resources: desertification and water shortage and short growing seasons will cause people to fight over shrinking land and water resources, and this sort of violence breeds terrorism.

The fact is that most research fails to find a connection between poverty and terrorism. The studies I’ve looked at recently, interestingly, all start by noting that the standard assumption is that there is a connection; they then go on to refute it, and act surprised by their findings. The connection makes some intuitive sense, of course, particularly when you talk about “suicide” attacks: a rational actor approach has to assume that the suicide attacker finds more perceived value in a glorious death than in their potential life prospects. But one study after another suggests that income and education may even be positively correlated with participation and terrorism and violence. Certainly the people involved in the recent Paris and San Bernadino attacks were not from “the poorest of the poor.”

That’s not to say that conflict isn’t likely to stem from climate change, overpopulation, environmental pressure, and other similar factors. “The wars of the 21^st century will be wars over water” is a popular phrase, and if we aren’t quite seeing water wars yet, the pressure is certainly building in many parts of the world.

What does correlate with terrorism is political freedom. The research seems pretty clear there. A match between expectations and opportunities also correlates with terrorist activities: people who have higher expectations but feel stymied by the social conditions they live under – whether in Syria or Belgium – are easier to recruit for extreme ideologies. So development broadly understood – a definition of development that includes not just economic growth, but how that growth is shared, how its perceived, and also how political systems and human rights interact with growth – does play a role in who turns to terrorism and other extremism.

In that respect, RBA would seem to be a good way of fighting terrorism in the long-term, so long as RBA means that rights, the progress of women, political reform, transparency, and good governance are part of the package. This goes well beyond the simple “public diplomacy” outreach that some advocate, and really means getting into the guts of how governments function. Unfortunately, there is precious little courage for this in current bilateral development policy. UN agencies seem to be a bit more courageous, but only a bit: still, they do promote good governance and political accountability. There is obvious need to see more resources put here, but that does not just mean financial resources. It will also have to be the political resources needed to really press for reform in countries that are resistant to it. It’s a surprise to me that policy makers in the US and elsewhere do not seem more prepared to stand behind the UN in these efforts.