Michael de Laine

By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice, 18 May 2009

International terrorism has a high political profile in many western countries, including the US, the UK and Denmark, for a number of reasons, and political violence against the US is an attractive option, as it draws attention to the case of perpetrators, one researcher believes.

Although only about 60 groups have been identified as carrying out transnational terrorism, such terrorism attracts a high political profile in many western countries, including the US, the UK and Denmark, for a number of reasons - for their policies in the Middle East and participation in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, political violence against the US, such as the World Trade Center attack on 11 September 2001, is an attractive option, as it draws attention in a dramatic way to the case of perpetrators, says Martha Crenshaw, a researcher at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.

She told a seminar hosted earlier this month by the Danish Institute for International Studies that Al-Qaeda , perhaps the best-known transnational terrorism group, has changed considerably since the 9/11 attack.

In fact, she said, identifying transnational terrorism groups is a rather difficult task, because they are constantly evolving. Some cease being active, others arise and include people from previously active groups. And because of some degree of secrecy, keeping tabs on them is time consuming.

They mostly develop from locally engaged groups whose leaders can see an advantage in drawing the US into their local conflicts through an act of political violence or terrorism, in the hope or expectation that rest if the world community will take notice of them and help.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks - 99.7% says Crenshaw - are transnationally local, while attacks across a wider sphere are actually very rare. Nevertheless, the US Office of Homeland Security considers transnational terrorism attacks as threats to the US, although only the Middle East groups Al-Qaeda , Black September and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have carried out attacks in the US, while Hamas has not.

Turning to discuss responses to transnational terrorism, Crenshaw looked at the strategies used by the US and other democracies.

An effective strategy against terrorism implies making progress in the political development of the area where the terror originates, she said. But how do you measure and define that progress? Are deterrent policies better and what do you if the threat of force is not enough?

Crenshaw said the US is deeply concerned about nuclear terrorism, which is regarded as the No. 1 terror threat of the future.

Political instability in Pakistan, and what is regarded as collusion between that nation’s armed forces and Muslim and/or Taliban rebels or terrorists operating in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area, could result in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands. This is regarded as a real threat and could lead to the US invoking its ‘overwhelming force’ policy against a state that helps others get nuclear arms.

But the question, ‘What do you if deterrence fails?’ remains unanswered.

For our interview with Martha Crenshaw go to: http://qik.com/video/1613113