London, July 25, IRNA -- The concept of terrorism is “controversial' and it is not useful to look for analogies in previous events, according to Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Professor of Government at the University of Essex in eastern England.Gleditsch, who is also a research associate of the Centre for the Study of Civil War at the International Peace Research Institute, further argues that too much confidence is placed on the views of alleged experts on terrorism and believes counter-terrorism strategies may be counterproductive as they can encourage terrorists to search for alternative targets.
In an interview with IRNA, he also disparaged attempts to eradicate the threat of terrorism by attempting to declare war on it as has happened in the US and UK.
The 39-year old professor from Oslo was commenting on reaction to Norway's worst-ever terrorist atrocities, in which at least 92 people were killed in a gun massacre at a youth camp and the bombing of government offices by a Christian right-wing extremist last Friday.
“I should say up front that it is not inherently helpful to look for analogies in previous events. Beyond the deaths and fear generated, there is really little similarity with 9/11,” he said about some comparisons.
“The Oklahoma city bombing perhaps reflected similar anti-government views, but these attacks were much more clearly directed against the Labour party, and in some ways reminiscent of the Swedish PM Palme assassination,” he told IRNA.
Gleditsch, who has carried out research into terrorism, was critical of the knee-jerk reaction by so-called experts, most of whom suggesting without any information of evidence, that the attacks were due to its international conflicts and the large Muslim immigrant community in Norway.
“These terrorism experts display a remarkable willingness to comment in the absence of any actual information. This should lead us to question the quality of their advice,” he said.
“More worryingly, the experts that are most willing to speculate may be precisely those that are most likely to generate media attention.”
Due to differing definitions of terrorism, the professor told IRNA that he was not even sure the Norwegian atrocities can be considered terrorism “since the perpetrator considered the likely victims as the key targets as Labour party activists.”
“The concept of terrorism is controversial, but if the term is to mean anything it would need to involve some kind of indirect violence and targeting,” he said.
“One might argue that terrorism differs from conventional attacks in that the victims are not the intended main audience, and the attack aims to influence an intended target indirectly through the effects of the attack, i.e. to terrorise.”
From his own scientific research, Gleditsch said that there were clear patterns in the statistical distributions of terrorist attack patterns and their severity.
“It leaves little hope for event prediction. Group size likely influences attack patterns, but does not tell us much about who may turn to terrorism in the first place,” he said.
The professor believed that security services regularly considered the risk of attacks from right-wing extremist, and said that he did not think there was any clear evidence to suggest that something like this was likely to occur in Norway.
“The focus of counter-terrorism strategies is a different issue and not directly related to this, although one might argue that there is excessive focus on Islamist extremist terrorism relative to actual risks,” he said.
His personal view is that the response of Norway has been “reasonably measured”.
He said he was “encouraged to see the emphasis on openness and treating violence as crime, which is neither better or worse if politically motivated.”
“Society cannot protect itself fully against violence, and I do not think terrorism or violence more generally can be eradicated through declaring war on it,” Gleditsch concluded.
