Primarily, the British Government finally developing a willingness to negotiate.
Although there’s something to this, I think that it overstates the case of linkage between extremism and economic opportunity. Cases in point, Osama bin Laden and the KKK.
Obviously, UBL is extremely wealthy and drawn to a violent cause. Look at his top lieutenants, and they, too, had a fair share of economic opportunities before taking up their cause. The ranks of his followers are drawn from mostly poorer countries, but is that correlation equal causation? Eh, I think that’s a pretty sketchy case.
OTOH, the KKK was fostered in a modern democracy. Although one may argue that, again, the ranks of that terrorist organization draws from the lower classes, one can hardly say that its political agenda was sparked by a repressive government. If anything, the KKK in earlier decades took advantage of our political system, by acting as sort of like a labor union in finding and sponsoring candidates for political office.
What I’m really saying is that extremism can flourish even where there is economic opportunity and where there is political freedom. One could certainly argue that we must do away with both poverty and oppression before eliminiating terrorism, but that’s a rather tall order to fill, isn’t it? Sort of like saying, the health care crisis in America would be solved if only everyone were millionaires.
But where is the KKK today…and what ‘terror’ acts do they perpetrate? When they cross the line and kill someone they are caught and punished. The hay day for the KKK was really just after the civil war, during a time of upheval and strife following the war…an ideal time even today for terror organizations.
Their second coming as it were, was also during a time of internal strife during the race conflicts in the South when some in America were still resistant and opposed to full integration of the Blacks (and so at least quasi-sympathetic to the KKK) into mainstream society…another time of fear and instability, though to a lesser degree. And the terror acts were to a lesser degree as time progressed and the people in the nation took a dimmer and dimmer view of such things until the hammer started to consistantly fall on the KKK when they did such things. Today they have a pretty good idea what would happen to them if they attempted church burnings or other terror acts.
I don’t think the KKK is exactly flourishing as a TERROR organization today, though of course they are still out there…and protected by things like freedom of speech. Same with the neo-nazi groups. They are protected unless and until they cross the line and actually try to DO anything…then the FBI and other agencies come down on them like the wrath of god.
Extremism can flourish in a free society only if a large enough segment of the population accepts such extremism and allows it. If the majority of a population doesn’t accept it then it won’t flourish…at least not as a terror organization. Democracy isn’t proof against extremism, especially if the population is divided about the issue. And of course, whether a nation is a democracy or not doesn’t matter if they are rife with internal strife, the government is weak, the people don’t actually feel tied to their government, etc…such situations breed instability and in such an environment terrorism can flourish.
Again, I don’t think that necessarily Democracy is proof against terrorism…I think a strong government and stability is whats proof against terrorism, the caviot being unless the government itself uses terror to keep its population in line…like North Korea, many of the old communist nations or like Iraq under Saddam. Certainly in those cases there wasn’t much of an environment for EXTERNAL terror groups (not sponsored by the government) to flourish…but plenty of internal terror FROM the government targetted at the populace.
I just happen to think that, in the long run, Democracy can provide both strong government and stability in most cases…and, again in the long run, those ties of the people to THEIR government. But then, I’m an idealist so take what I say with a large grain of salt…
-XT
Ravenman:
Jobs are important, though, because they prevent the development of idle hands, which are needed to put extremist thought into extremist action. I believe that the relationship between terrorism and economic security are undeniable. But I agree with you on the other point; political freedom does not necessarily prevent extremism.
If anything is the anathema to extremism, I think diversity would be it. In the US, extremists are most numerous in areas that are economically depressed and not exactly teeming with people of varying ethnicities, cultures, religions, and educational backgrounds. So extreme ideas can take root and grow in such places because there will be little competition from other ideas. A whole community can become convinced that the world is conspiring against them and their way of life. They respond accordingly.
Remove the isolation and homogeneity of a community, and extremism will flounder.
Well, chicken and the egg. You claim that they gave up terrorism because they had less sympathizers, one could also say they had fewer sympathizers to carry out terrorism. In any case, the KKK flourished in the '60s when we were a democratic, but intolerant, society.
So do we take from this argument that we have to not only turn countries into democracies, but also into TOLERANT democracies before terrorism disappears? Oh, wait, democratic, tolerant, AND wealthy countries will fight terrorism… Or maybe we need countries that democratic, tolerant, wealthy, well-educated, healthy, unpolluted, repectful of nature, etc., etc., etc. Talk about raising the bar! I sure hope the only way to end terrorism isn’t to hope for the creation of a world-wide utopia!
The correlation is undeniable, but in Iraq, we have heard reports about Iraqis who hold good jobs, but sympathize with the anti-American insurgency, so they provide support to insurgents in their spare time. I just don’t buy the whole idle hands thing. It seems to me more likely that the grievance of poor working conditions or lack of employment drive people to extremes (look at the peasants who terrorized landlords during the Chinese revolution); but that folks turn to violence because they have no job seems like a idea spawned from a Puritanical work ethic run amok.
Look, folks, terrorism is a tactic, not a human affliction. It’s not a disease that can be eliminated by using the political or economic equivalent of providing clean drinking water to stop the spread of illnesses. If terrorism is to have an “end,” it’s going to have to go the way of slavery, piracy, and other distasteful practices. The collective decision to end those practices was basically a moral decision; I don’t believe they were ended by political freedom and economic opportunity.
The '60’s was a time of instability and unrest in the US, when great changes to our society were taking place, and a lot of reactionary elements in society were frightened and, well, reacting. It was the beginning of the end of the intolerence for one thing, and there was a wave or reaction against such change. In other words it was a good environment for home grown terror. I don’t see it as a chicken and egg thing though…there were less sympathizers because society itself became intolerant of what was happening and began the slow and painful process of fundamental change in its attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks.
Not at all…I’ve said several times that stability and strong government is more a key than democracy per se. Where you are getting the ‘democratic, tolerant, AND wealthy’ from I have no idea…its not from me, though I do believe several of those are key to making the ground less fruitful for terrorists.
And frankly we are talking about the difference (with your KKK example) between an internal hate group or terror organization and an international one. Those two things, while similar, aren’t the same. Strong stable government rarely spawn unwanted external or international terrorist organizations…at least I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Whereas weak, unstable or ineffective governments do, whether they be democratic or anything else.
-XT
Most of the people responsible for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, which has a strong and stable government.
SA has a government that walks the fence between wanting to be a friend of the West and catering to their own reactionary elements, and a population that has a non-trivial percentage that are in sympathy with said reactionary elements…a perfect breeding ground for terrorists.
-XT
Much like the leftist movement of today, all form no substance.
Right. 
Actually a very appropiate remark and true… that is why I don’t like ideological governments and “faith based” presidents. Nor am I a fan of left wing utopians.
That is a very good question, since the answer to terrorism is that it is only through Liberty, that will Peace be achieved.
The form of government has only one factor. The Tyranny of the Majority is still Tyranny. This is exactly what the Sunnis and Kurds fear of the Shiites.
Would not a Dictatorship that enforces minority rights be better than a Democracy that takes pride in discriminating against minorities?
Unfortunately, power corrupts. Even America is ruled by a Majority that feel it is their God given Duty to discriminate against Samaritans, I mean gays.
Peace through Liberty
rwjefferson