A-Z Updates

A vigil for the victims of an attack at Manchester Arena on May 23, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

Frederic Lemieux, Georgetown University

Editor’s note: The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for an attack at the Manchester Arena that claimed at least 22 lives and hospitalized 59 more people. One victim was just eight years old. The mayor of Manchester called the attack “an evil act.”

Because the media often sensationalizes terrorism and authorities tend to oversimplify it, demystifying common misconceptions about why individuals carry out political violence is important. We asked a professor at Georgetown University to answer three common questions about terrorism and political violence.

Terrorism is not an ideology like communism or capitalism.

Rather, terrorism is a tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end.

This strategy is often used in asymmetric power struggles when a weaker person, or group, is fighting against a powerful nation-state. The violence is aimed at creating fear in the targeted population and often provokes prompt and violent response from the state.

Acts of terrorism followed by violent crackdowns can become a cycle that is difficult to disrupt.

Recently, terrorist groups have begun using the internet and the media to spread fear and affect public opinion. The Islamic State uses the internet to recruit followers.

Nations also use terrorism tactics in other countries to safeguard their own national interest. Iran is known for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israel. The United States supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against the communist government of Gamal Abdel Nasser and the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

Terrorists are not all after the same thing.

Terrorists often justify their bloody acts on the basis of perceived social, economic and political unfairness. Or they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual principles.

Many forms of terrorism were inspired by warfare between races, struggles between the rich and poor or battles between political outcasts and elites.

Some are ethnically based separatism movements, like the Irish Republican Army or Palestine Liberation Organization. The former cartel of Medellin are considered narco-terrorists because they combine drug trafficking with terrorism tactics to intimidate government and population.

Movements led by the extreme left like Colombia’s FARC are an example of terrorism inspired by a socioeconomic doctrine – in this case, a belief in communism.

Many terrorist groups are inspired by a specific interpretation of religious or prophetic scriptures. Al-Qaida and IS are two related groups that justify their violent actions as part of a crusade against nonbelievers. IS wants to establish a Caliphate, or an Islamic-ruled state.

How different terrorist groups act is informed by what they are trying to achieve. Some adopt a reactionary perspective aimed at stopping or resisting social, economic and political changes. Examples include IS, al-Qaida and the Army of God, a Christian anti-abortion group based in the U.S.

Others adopt a revolutionary doctrine and want to provoke change. Examples include the former Red Army Faction in Germany, the Irish Republican Army and Basque separatists in Spain.

Some terrorists seek revenge, or what they consider justice. They are guided by a single issue, such as animal rights (PETA) or pro-life (Army of God).

Despite the intensity of media coverage and public perception, terrorism is actually not more frequent today than a few decades ago. For instance, terrorist attacks were far more common during the Cold War period than during the post-9/11 era. Some experts believe terrorism peaked during the 1970s.

Despite the recent attacks, the U.K. and Western Europe experienced relatively low terrorist activity during the period 2000 to 2016 compared with the period 1970 to 1995.

In the United States, terrorism attacks were in sharp decline from 1970 to 2011, decreasing from approximately 475 incidents a year to fewer than 20.

Worldwide, terrorism is highly concentrated in a handful of countries.

Terrorist attacks in 2014 were mainly concentrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria. These countries saw 78 percent of the deaths and 57 percent of all attacks in the world. Since 2000, only 3 percent of deaths caused by terrorist attacks took place in Western countries, including Australia, Canada, members of the European Union and the United States.

In the U.S., the number of deaths represents 2.2 percent of the worldwide terrorist death toll. The violence committed in Western countries by organized terrorist groups such as al-Qaida or IS represents approximately 30 percent, while so-called “lone wolfs” account for 70 percent of the attacks.

All in all, terrorism activity in Western countries is not worse than before the 9/11 era. The opposite is true.

According to American University professor Audrey Cronin, terrorism as a tactic does not work well. Cronin studied 457 terrorist groups worldwide since 1968. The groups lasted an average of eight years before they lost support or were dismantled. No terrorist organizations that she studied were able to conquer a state, and 94 percent were unable to achieve even one of their strategic goals.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. 19, 2016.

Frederic Lemieux, Professor of the Practice and Faculty Director of the Master's in Applied Intelligence, Georgetown University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

David Mickler, University of Western Australia

Nigeria and its neighbours have proposed a regional taskforce to tackle the brutal Boko Haram insurgency, which has waged war in the northeast of the country since 2009. But will it work?

Boko Haram has killed more than 10,000 people and forced more than a million others to flee. It has captured 30,000 square kilometres of Nigerian territory, has reported links to al-Qaeda and has been dubbed “Africa’s ISIS”.

So, where has the plan for a regional taskforce come from? What does it propose to do? And will it have UN Security Council authorisation?

Nigeria is home to Africa’s largest economy and its largest population. It is also Africa’s largest democracy, albeit a fragile one. But Nigeria has faced an increasingly brazen campaign of violence and terror by Boko Haram.

Attacks occur almost daily on both government and civilian targets, and recent events have raised the stakes. In April 2014, Boko Haram sparked international outrage by kidnapping nearly 300 schoolgirls from Chibok. In January this year, ten-year-old suicide bombers were reportedly used in attacks and militants decimated the people and town of Baga.

Boko Haram has also expanded its attacks into Cameroon, Niger and now Chad. This has made stopping it more than just a Nigerian problem.

The Nigerian government, a leader in African peace and security governance, has been unable to counter this violent challenge. Declaring a state of emergency in three northeastern states, it has deployed under-resourced Nigerian army forces and been accused of extra-judicial killings of suspected insurgents. Its failure to halt attacks has been a source of frustration and criticism.

The crisis even threatens Nigerian democracy. National elections due to have been held on February 14 were postponed for six weeks. The government claims this is due to an inability to securely conduct the poll in the affected states.

The Nigerian government has used its regional power and influence to control how Boko Haram features on African and international security agendas. However, it has reluctantly come to accept that it needs external help.

As the Boko Haram insurgency has spread, Nigeria’s neighbours have sought to co-operate to halt its progress. In mid-2014, the search for a regional solution gathered momentum. Representatives from Nigeria and its neighbours in the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC), Chad, Cameroon and Niger, met with counterparts from Benin, France, the US and UK.

Following the Chibok abductions, in May 2014 the UN Security Council added Boko Haram to its list of terrorist groups under travel, financial and weapons sanctions.

In October 2014, the LCBC agreed on a plan to deploy a Multinational Joint Task Force to counter Boko Haram. Under the terms of regional and global security governance concerning the legitimate use of military force, the proposal needed formal authorisation by the African Union and the UN Security Council.

In January, the African Union formally authorised the taskforce for an initial 12-month period. It has called on the Security Council to do the same, and to provide financial and logistical support.

Most recently, the LCBC and partners met in Cameroon in February to hammer out the final operational details.

The taskforce would consist of 8700 military, police and civilian personnel. It would conduct co-ordinated military and intelligence operations to prevent Boko Haram’s expansion and to stabilise areas previously under its control. It would also protect civilians, help displaced people to return home and enable some humanitarian assistance.

However, the extent to which neighbouring countries would actually be allowed to operate their forces on Nigerian soil is not clear.

Nigeria’s role in the development of a regional approach has been and remains crucial. As a member of both the African Union Peace and Security Council and the UN Security Council, Nigeria has slowly allowed the issue of Boko Haram onto their agendas – but it has largely directed the international response.

The UN Security Council will now consider the taskforce proposal. This will include sorting out who will pay for the taskforce and logistical issues.

The Security Council will also consider how human rights would be protected in any UN-authorised counter-insurgency campaign against Boko Haram. Many observers have criticised the Nigerian government’s human rights record during the response so far, and the impunity with which abuses have been committed.

The Nigerian government is gearing up for a major operation against the insurgents and claims it can defeat them within the six weeks before the delayed election. The immediate tasks are to contain Boko Haram from spreading into the wider region, and then to begin making inroads into the significant territory under its control to protect vulnerable civilian populations.

There are deeper issues regarding the conditions that have enabled Boko Haram to flourish, which are beyond the mandate and capacity of any regional intervention force. These include political marginalisation and socio-economic underdevelopment in the predominantly Muslim regions of Nigeria’s north, religious radicalisation and wider governance challenges, such as corruption, in the Nigerian polity.

These are issues for the Nigerian people and their governments to address, starting with the rescheduled national elections on March 28.

David Mickler, Lecturer in Foreign Policy and International Relations, University of Western Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.