Q&A

Claude E. Welch, Jr., SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Political Science, has written extensively on Africa, human rights and the political role of armed forces. An internationally recognized expert on military topics and terrorism, he has been a faculty member at UB since 1964.

What is "terrorism"?

Terrorism is both a tactic and a strategy used by proponents of political change. As a tactic, it means the use of violence by a small group in order to gain attention and sympathy for their cause. As a strategy, it based on (to me) the romantic idea that widespread, popular support and/or immediate, radical change can be brought about by the acts of a few. It is thus generally not a coherent ideology of either right or left, but a means of insurrection, which persons of very different political convictions can utilize.

Is terrorism becoming increasingly prevalent nationally and internationally?

It is being reported more widely; in general, however, it is becoming less common. Take some obvious examples: the steps toward peace in Northern Ireland have isolated those who prefer bombs to political bombast and negotiations; inter-ethnic killings and government-directed violence have dropped considerably in South Africa; even in the Middle East, incidents flare up more in accordance with the rhythm of political negotiations, rather than much of the time.

On the other hand, the American populace has become far more aware of the possibilities of terrorism on our home soil. The bombings of the World Trade Center and of the federal office building in Oklahoma City-two attacks carried out for diametrically opposed political reasons-made many Americans shudder with, to me, unreasonable fear. There is more danger to life from a drunk driver, or even a wet shower-stall floor, than from a terrorist here at home. In 1972, 42 Americans died in terrorist attacks, 11 in 1984.

How has terrorism changed in the past 10 years?

First, and to me by far the most important, government-sponsored or government­encouraged terrorism against citizens has dropped considerably. I mentioned South Africa earlier; much of Central America is far less dangerous now. Second, aircraft hijackings have practically disappeared, as security arrangements have been significantly improved. Hostages continue to be taken, but the purpose often is ransom rather than political impact. Yes, car bombs continue to be used....

Car bombs are a fact of life in cities like London and Beirut. How long before that sort of terrorism escalates in the U.S.?

...but not in the United States. Yes, watch out in Tel Aviv or Karachi for vehicles carrying bombs, but the threat here comes far more from the inebriate than from the terrorist. We in the U.S. have the great advantages of a multi-level, reasonably responsive government and of an economy that continues to create jobs (albeit many of them at ridiculously low wages). In this country, "terror" is more the result of random violence eased by the availability of unregistered handguns and a drug culture than by car bombers.

Are Americans naive about the possibility of terrorism in our own country?

Yes, we are. We do not like to admit that other Americans are capable of major terrorist violence. Consider the early reports from Oklahoma City, fingering "a person of Middle Eastern characteristics," and the local embarrassment when the perpetrator turned out to be a decorated veteran. Modern urban society is highly susceptible to terrorism targeting computer programs, electricity supplies or public health. But are terrorists more a threat in the United States than the Y2K issue? Than a cascade of power failures from an overloaded generating plant? From a sudden genetic mutation creating a killer like the post-World War I flu (which killed more than the "war to end all wars" did)? But we need to recall that a strength of democracy for citizens, namely its openness, is also a factor aiding terrorists. Democratic societies seldom take effective preventive action against potential threats; our personal liberties are more important.

Is it realistic for the U.S. to police terrorism internationally?

No. The American role comes best in using its immense technological (a.k.a. spying or intelligence) resources in tracing wireless communications, bank transfers and weapons shipments by would-be terrorist groups. We should not expect U.S. strike forces to turn up in odd parts of the globe because of terrorist threats to other governments, unless they are very closely tied to our own. But we can share information, provide training and, in general, seek to build international consensus against the use of terrorism. Judging by Northern Ireland, South Africa, Central America and, arguably, the Middle East, the results have been reasonably satisfactory.

How has the Internet changed the culture of terrorism?

Information can be disseminated far more rapidly-for would-be terrorists, as well as for their opponents. Witness, for example, how rapidly news about the assassination of Dr. Barnett Slepian was spread, as well as the publicity given to his home address on some anti-abortion Web sites. Instruction on making even nuclear weapons can be found on the Internet. So, too, can cockeyed theories of political change that could inspire some to terrorism.

What new twists on terrorism do you see emerging in the next century?

More experimentation with (but hopefully not utilization of!) biological weapons by terrorists. Sabotage of vital communications centers might be expected, although the multiplication of means of wireless communications has reduced the importance of ground centers somewhat.

Have you ever been a victim of terrorization?

No, but my eldest daughter, a 1985 graduate of UB, was hijacked on a flight in Southeast Asia. It turns out the "explosive" the Burmese students were carrying was nothing more than plaster statues with attached wires!

What question do you wish I had asked, and how would you have answered it?

I wish you had asked why the media are so fascinated by terrorism. I would have responded that, yes, it makes for good copy or visuals, but the explanations for terrorism receive little attention. Further, I hoped for a question about government-encouraged terrorism: far, far more deaths have resulted in this century from deliberate acts of genocidal regimes than from all terrorist actions from below. Finally, I would have enjoyed a question as to whether terrorism "pays" in terms of tangible results-and I would have said, "In most cases, no." Its effectiveness is drastically overestimated, a lesson learned in some cases only over decades.