International terrorism, political instability and the escalation effect

The events of 9/11 caused a major shift in donor behaviour. The securitisation of aid, as it was termed, saw governments prioritise security issues over strict development concerns. As such Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) was provided to those states who were in-line with the respective donor governments’ security concerns and committed to tackling domestic instability. This, it was hoped, would stop the rise of terrorism. Indeed governments have once again responded with aid for Somalia in an attempt to tackle the insecurity in the Gulf of Aden.

However is this focus on domestic instability the right course of action for foreign governments to take? Does the evidence of past terror attacks concur with ‘donor’ behaviour? This paper seeks to determine what the main causes of international terrorism are. The authors assert that although there was a flurry of research on the subject following 9/11 the evidence for the root causes of terrorism were inconclusive.

The authors analysed data on terrorist attacks from more than 130 countries over a 25 year period (1968-2003). The main findings are that:

• in line with previous research, per capita GDP and foreign aid are not robust factors in explaining international terrorism
  
• there is evidence that OECD membership (or being a rich country) is a less important factor than ideological proximity to the U.S.
  
• civil wars and guerrilla warfare are robustly associated with international terror, while riots and strikes are not.

The authors determine that the latter conclusion is critical to understanding terrorism, i.e. that serious domestic instability is indeed a precursor for the exporting of terror. They assert that such instability escalates into international terrorism because it provides and perfects the skills (military, strategic and organisational) required to carry out international terrorist acts.