The changing face of terrorism

Riots and malicious damage, sabotage and disruption, revolutions and assassinations: political violence in one shape or another has been with us since the earliest days of civilisation.

But at the extreme end of the political violence spectrum, terrorism is becoming increasingly bloody - and indiscriminate. And we may not have seen the worst of it yet, according to one expert.

Professor Max Taylor, director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St. Andrews, has studied the subject for over 20 years. His publications include “The Future of Terrorism” and “The Fanatics: A Behavioural Approach To Political Violence.”

He thinks that extreme political violence has changed in two important ways. In the early days of terrorism, terrorists deliberated carefully over their targets. “There would have been concern about victims - if it was appropriate to kill, who to kill, the circumstances and the death of civilians,” he says. “The early European terrorists agonized over killing civilians but this soon receded as a concern… increasingly what we now see is not simply deaths of civilians but attempts at mass casualty rates.”

The second important change in terrorist behaviour, Professor Taylor points out, is the use of suicide as a means of attack: “Generally in European terrorism, escape for the terrorist was a rate limiting factor. Recent experience has changed this.”

From activism to mass murder

The increasing use of suicide bombs or other extreme acts as a form of terrorism is often put down to brainwashing or indoctrination. But how does political dissent turn into radicalisation - and what do media pundits mean when they talk about “breeding grounds” for terrorism?

Factors that contribute to political dissent are reasonably well known – Professor Taylor cites social disadvantage, strong ideology and leadership. But it is much more difficult to identify the circumstances under which politically engaged people progress from political activism or association, to engaging in violence, he adds.

“Association with a radical group, for example, sounds like an obvious and critical element. But if you look at the so called ‘homegrown terrorists’ they seem to have little direct involvement with such groups,” he says. “I think we need to look much more towards psychological rather than political explanations for this – and by psychological I mean individual and idiosyncratic accounts, not psychopathology.”

Professor Taylor believes that political violence and terrorism is increasingly indiscriminate and therefore “worse” than in the past is because attacks are magnified by the media.

“If terrorism is about theatre then media attention magnifies its effects, and also its attractions… We seem to have lost a sense of ‘limits’ to violence which I think is very worrying,” he explains. “The ultimate fear is the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. If the effects of mass casualties is an aspiration, the use of WMD seems to be an inevitable development.”

Does terrorism work?

The detonation of a dirty bomb in an urban environment would certainly be a game changing atrocity for any terrorist. Suicide attacks such as those seen in Mumbai and London have only made everyday activities more difficult for the terrorists’ perceived enemy, without fundamentally changing people’s way of life.

Authorities’ response to terrorism has made using public transport more time consuming and fraught; opening a bank account is more complicated; even taking photographs of iconic architecture can risk an encounter with security staff.

More far-reaching changes to human rights have resulted, however. “We have changed some of our legal assumptions, notions of due process, judicial imprisonment, and the way in which for example torture has been used against suspected terrorists. These are insults to the fundamental qualities of our way of life,” Professor Taylor states.

That doesn’t mean that terrorism always achieves its aims, however. “With political violence for its own sake, or where the terrorist’s political demands are non-negotiable and requiring fundamental change of its adversary - then I think it can’t achieve its ends,” Professor Taylor believes.

Identifying the next wave

Extreme Islamic based terrorism will continue, however, and its incidence is likely to rise in the medium term, Professor Taylor predicts. But global jihad will not always be the biggest threat to security, he predicts.

“Environmental concerns, associated with resource allocation and inequalities, movement of people, etc. are a much greater long term concern I believe.

“Right wing terrorism, as a response to current terrorist threats associated with Islam, and also as a response to social changes caused by environmental issues is another possible development,” he warns.

Professor Taylor is worried that not enough is being done to assess and understand these potential new threats. “We need to engage more with civil society and business to draw together a coherent collective response,” he stresses. “The effective management of terrorism cannot continue to be seen as just the job of the State and its organs. We need to develop a more collective approach as we do in other areas like crime prevention.”

Emphasis on risk experts’ role

Risk professionals in Lloyd’s not only provide insurance for assets and investments in over 150 countries specifically against political violence. They also represent an important resource through their accumulated experience and analysis of events around the world.

Society can be made more resilient to political violence, Professor Taylor believes. “In my view the insurance industry has a particularly major role to play here, in terms of contributing to our thinking on risk and risk assessment,” he says. “I firmly believe in the role of education – for professionals and for the public more generally. An educated public will still be hurt and damaged, but better understanding [of the risks] can help to attenuate these effects.”

Comments

No comments