After Terror: Promoting Dialogue Among Civilizations

After Terror: Promoting Dialog among Civilizations:
Comments at the book launch on links to development

Since the terrible events of the 11^th September 2001, a renewed debate has emerged about the possible links between terrorism and poverty, inequity or development more broadly. Everyone’s heard the “poverty breeds violence” logic, and the standard rebuttals: most terrorists are not the poorest in their societies, and why does terrorism appear to be growing while poverty is (on average) declining?

The variety of perspectives within the book suggest that the links between terrorism and development are far more varied and complex than this. An introductory essay by Zbigniew Brzezinski reminds the reader that terrorism is not an end in itself, but rather a tactic used in support of a broader political objective. This is, I believe, the key to the link between development and terrorism: poverty, inequity or a lack of development is not the cause of terrorism (otherwise terrorism would be endemic), but is rather the context within which acts of terrorism will be interpreted – and thus may influence whether sympathy for the political cause is built or eroded.

So what is development? Sir Nicolas Stern, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, liked to describe development as a process of change rather than accumulation. Looked at through this lens, I’m going to explore three broad hypotheses about the links between a context for terrorism and development, loosely summarized as: cause, cure and dialog.

Development as Cause?

Many of the essays suggest that an underlying cause of many of the conflicts that we see in the world today are the result of processes of social, economic and political change in the world. Changes brought about as countries grow economically, modernize their institutions, and as millions – if not billions – of individuals shift their expectations of what life may bring to them and their children. In other words, the cause is development.

As we know from our own lives, change is uncomfortable. While change brought about by development is a net positive, we shouldn’t lose sight of the many losers. Some lose jobs, others power, others even identity. To make matters worse, no golden rule exists that economic and political systems develop in tandem – indeed, many development challenges revolve around political and economic institutions becoming out of synch – which heightens the risk that conflicts arising from development may not be resolved easily.

Such disjoints have only accelerated in era of globalization as civil society, private companies and others acquire new capacities as a result of external linkages or demands. And as several of the authors explored, the rate of change seems to be increasing, and is increasingly beyond the control of governments, religious leaders or indigenous groups.

Since some are almost inevitably better prepared than others to take advantage of the change development brings, development can lead to increased inequity – or at the very least, perceptions of increased inequity. And as development also leads to increased information flows and interconnectedness, a far broader awareness of inequity both within and across countries.

Which all leads to Hypothesis One: Development or the transition to modernity unleashes changes that may lead to violent responses by some. This perspective suggests that Huntington should have explored the Clash Within Civilizations rather than Clash of Civilizations. The solution is clearly not to avoid development, but to focus on effective development – to turn it from “cause”, to “cure”.

Development as Cure?

Despite the significant and obvious problems around development today – such as inadequate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, unsustainable indebtedness among many of the world’s poorest countries, and an unfair global trading system – development is an extraordinary success story. The world today has fewer people in absolute poverty than we did 50 years ago, despite a huge increase in the world’s population. Human development indicators, on average, also show dramatic improvements. And a number of countries around the world show an accelerated pathway from poverty to prosperity, from authoritarian to democratic rule, and from instability to stability.

While improvements in absolute living standards are important, so are improvements in empowering individuals and communities to shape their own destinies. My own country, South Africa, is a powerful example of this. The injustices of Apartheid meant that violence often resonated with a substantial proportion of the population; now, despite the fact that many people are still waiting to experience the economic benefits of the transition, terrorism would be an unacceptable tactic to the overwhelming majority.

Could more be done? Of course, but what has already been done, primarily by developing countries themselves, has gone a long way towards creating contexts where terrorism is less likely rather than more likely to resonate.

Hypothesis two: Development can contribute to a “cure” by shifting the context within which terror may feed or starve.

Development as Dialog?

As the subtitle of the book suggests, the major thrust of many of the essays is about dialog as a means to prevent terror. Authors explore dialog across cultures, religions, countries and numerous other divides.

As many have said before, Development itself is a form of dialog – between rich and poor countries, between North and South, and increasingly between South and South. The dialog happens at lofty levels – currently in the run-up to the Gleneagles G8 summit on debt relief, global warming and prioritizing Africa – and at the very practical level of specific projects, such as a rural road that provides a whole new set of opportunities for a rural community.

At the global level the dialog is basically about the way we want the world to be, and each action sends a signal about the world we are aspiring to. Decisions such as those made at the forthcoming G8 summit will be interpreted by those who live in G8 countries as being primarily about internal politics and the availability of finance, but for many who live in developing countries it will be interpreted as a message about the way the North views the South and about the prospects for groups within the South to achieve their goals through dialog.

Development has one major advantage as a terrain for dialog, and one major weakness. The advantage is that it is a dialog about concrete objectives rather than mutual understanding – and it seems easier to develop mutual understanding from cooperating around concrete objectives, than to develop concrete achievements by focusing on mutual understanding. The weakness is that development, as it is often practiced, is a dialog characterized by unequal power – between rich and poor, expert and learner, worldly-wise and locally-focused. And power imbalances can lead to monologue more than dialogue.

As everyone here knows, development as dialogue is not a new agenda. More equity in Aid, Trade and Debt; listening to the client; partnership; empowering people – these are the mantras of the moment, and usually taken seriously because they help to deliver results.

****

To end, it is important not to overstate the links between development and terrorism. In any given circumstance the links between development and terror may be weak. But on average, across the world and in the long-term, shifting the context within which terror may thrive or starve is absolutely critical.