Economic Inequality and Global Terrorism

As advocates of the left often do, Professor Frances Stewart argued some time ago (Letters, Financial Times, 19thMarch 2004) in the Financial Times that economic inequality between the West and the Arab states is the root cause of terrorism. She concluded that the West should be looking for the ways to fight terrorism by eradicating poverty. Is that really so?

While the overall outlook of an average Palestinian is gloomy, the overall outlook of an average Ethiopian or a Bangladeshi is not much better either. It is worse as a matter of fact. However, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Albania and a number of other poor countries have remained virtually free of terrorists. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the majority of 9/11 bombers, can hardly be considered a poor country. Although its economy has suffered decline in the last three decades, the current GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia measures up to those of the countries recently joined the EU.

The masterminds of global terrorism are hardly a bunch of deprived and uneducated lads. On the opposite, Osama bin Laden enjoyed a rather luxurious lifestyle as a member of one of the richest families in the West of Saudi Arabia before he decided to venture into Afghani mountains to fight infidels. People like Yasser Arafat or late Sheikh Yassin raised and spent millions of dollars on bombs, not on the welfare of their oppressed countrymen. Saudi Arabia, home of the financial supporters of terrorists - rich Sheiks (another deprived lot), waited for the West to provide basic relief to the poor Muslims in the Tsunami affected areas and then donated money to build mosques! Were they all troubled by economic deprivation or perhaps suffered from it? I don’t think so.

So, is Professor Stewart right? Should we fight terrorism by fighting poverty? Not really. The root cause of the recent upsurge of terrorism is in the religious intolerance of the Muslim fanatics. How best to fight it? By bringing down totalitarian societies in which extremes of all kinds flourish in the absence of political liberty to express their ideas. If a political force is driven outside of political institutions of the state, it is likely to resort to terrorism to get their message across. Put them into the Parliament and the violence is likely to stop. This was largely the case with the likes of IRA and extreme European left of the 70’s. Rebellious students, former members of Baader Meinhof and Brigate Rosse, today vote for various European Socialist parties. Today the likes of Martin McGuiness, the former highly ranked IRA officer, are political figures.

Yes, I am suggesting here that even religious fanatics should be allowed to participate in the political life. Of course, the prerequisite is dismantling of oppressive regimes and creation of political pluralism – the creation of a parliamentary democracy.

However, since religious fanatics are and will remain intolerant until they reach political maturity as the European extreme left did, to an extent though (although their ideas are still utterly stupid and destructive at least they don’t use bombs any more), there should be strong mechanisms in support of tolerance and pluralism in those baby-democracies. The power-sharing needs to be carefully balanced to prevent the intolerant lot from prevailing. And because the supporters of religious fanatics are numerous, these protection mechanisms should be imposed upon the baby-democracies from the outside.

All of this sounds familiar? Well, this is exactly what is currently being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take decades to transform those basket-case societies, under the supervision of the West, into democracies where religious and other extremes are on the margins of the political life. However painful this process may be, whatever it may cost and however long it will take this is exactly the right thing to do and will yield long-term benefits in spite of current obstacles.

Funny enough, even though the left is against terrorism and for democracy (at least that's where their mouth is), they fiercely oppose such measures without offering a viable alternative. In fact they do not offer an altarnative at all. They seem to like the dictators and the terrorists. To really support the fight against terrorism, the left should be doing exactly the opposite of what they are doing at the moment. They should stop supporting dictators (which are ‘good guys’ as long as they are against the US) and side with the efforts aimed towards achieving political pluralism in the countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let us hope economic liberalisation will follow. Economic liberalisation usually reduces inequality, which is something Professor Stewart should certainly look forward to. That is if Professor Stewart really wants to eradicate poverty and is not just looking for another way to redistribute wealth, impoverish the West and make everyone ‘equal’.