Ending the allure of terrorism

The finding that the Iraq war is cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement, contained in the recently declassified US National Intelligence Estimate report, is alarming. But it should not be surprising.

The report highlights a shortcoming in our approach to Islamist terrorism, characterised by an emphasis on military intervention and surveillance and detection of militants.

We seek to thwart terrorists — but only after they have formed the desire to terrorise us. By then it is too late.

Our security would be better served by coupling this focus with one whose objective is to prevent people forming this desire in the first place.

It is usual to treat threats to the wellbeing of society with a two-pronged response: neutralising both supply and demand. A good analogy can be found in action against illicit drugs. Society attempts to curb demand for drugs through education and supply through law enforcement.

By contrast, the way we respond to Islamist terrorism is telling — little is done to discourage the supply of terrorists.

Militants who cloak their misanthropy with an Islamist robe exploit those who feel hopeless and incite them to slaughter. Certainly these militants play a central role in the evolution of terrorists — and territorial disputes and the foreign policies of some countries provide ammunition for this.

But if the would-be terrorists did not feel hopeless, then the militants' rhetoric would find less sympathetic ears.

Our current focus on military engagement and rejection of extremism plays a key role in safeguarding society. But it does not reduce the supply of would-be terrorists.

What enables these militants to attract a ballooning number of recruits? The answer cannot be Islam, which has been around for more than 1000 years. This is a recent problem.

Instead, the supply of terrorists is better explained by the increasing numbers of dissociated and disenchanted people who feel hopeless. They seek hope — and the messianic ranting of the militants offers this in the afterlife.

It has been said that the half of the world's population who live on less than $US2 a day have little expectation of a gainful existence; affinity with this hopelessness is an underlying cause of terrorism.

The prospects we have — nurtured by education and employment — drive us to be constructive and are the converse of the hopelessness that drives the would-be terrorists to be destructive.

A recent illustration involves Nabil Ahmad Jaaoura, the Jordanian man who fired 15 gunshots into a crowd of tourists in Amman, wounding an Australian woman among other victims. Jaaoura was a resident of the impoverished town of Zarqa — also the home town of deceased al-Qaeda frontman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In a recent TV interview, former US president Bill Clinton said: "That's what's driving the terrorism. (The militants) can convince young Sunni Arab men … who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."

Important amplifiers of this hopelessness are the feelings of unfairness and injustice that tint how the poor see the international economic system.

This means the decisive battlegrounds in the misnamed "war" on terror are not Afghanistan and Iraq but the hearts and minds of those who would be terrorists. And the decisive blow will come not from a weapon, but from stopping the supply of terrorists. This will only be achieved through the restoration of hope and by ensuring effective representation and participation in the international economic system.

Only then will the developed world overcome the perception that its institutions suffer from deep-seated unfairness and injustice.

The outcome of the recent IMF meetings in Singapore is a sign that we are beginning to walk down this path. But many steps lie ahead.

Commentators suspect that the second stage of proposed reforms will be more difficult to pass. A failure to commit meaningfully to reform will reinforce the hopelessness felt by the impoverished and harden the desire to seek retribution for unfairness and injustice.

It will do nothing to reduce the supply of disenchanted individuals to the militants.

Australia has a rare opportunity to stem the supply of terrorists through its position this year as chair of the G-20, which will meet in Melbourne in November.

The program for that meeting lists reform of the IMF and WB first on the agenda and reads in part: "In 2006, the G-20 will monitor progress of reviews already under way, provide further focus to the reform agenda, and sustain the momentum for reform."

Treasurer Peter Costello has been visionary in his commitment to reforming the IMF quotas, but he and Australia must be steadfast in this and similar ambitions if meaningful reform is to transpire.

Global public consciousness has already condemned an institutional structure of the IMF, WTO and WB that slants those organisations against the poor — and is demanding reform.

If world leaders placate protestors by saying they have arranged seats for developing countries at the dining table of the international economic order, but fail to implement adequate reform, then the world's poor will hear us telling them to sit on the floor and wait for the crumbs from our table. Perceptions of hopelessness, unfairness and injustice — things that make ripe the minds of would-be terrorists for seeds planted by the militants — will continue to fester undisturbed.