Is the world going to become more or less stable in the coming year?
There will continue to be a global threat from jihadist terrorist groups related to Al-Qaeda and some developments - notably the growth of violent extremism in Pakistan – could, if unchecked, fuel this threat. The same is true of Afghanistan if the international community fails to summon the political will to stay the course there. In terms of inter-state conflict, probably the area of highest immediate risk for global security is Iran, whose continued defiance of the international community over the development of its nuclear enrichment programme could conceivably result in punitive military action either by the USA or Israel. Such action would stoke instability in the Middle East and the wider Islamic world and would have global repercussions.
Looking beyond traditional security threats, there is a risk that global financial insecurity might trigger moves in the direction of a less open global economy and the return to a more nationalistic, protectionist mood. Other factors for instability include continued high energy and food prices giving rise to instability particularly in less-developed states whose populations are disproportionately vulnerable to such shifts. And the world remains vulnerable to large-scale natural disaster, exacerbated by the impact of climate change, and to pandemics.
Which area(s) present the greatest threat to geopolitical stability?
Currently the regions posing the greatest threat to geopolitical stability are in the Middle East and West Asia. As indicated above, Iran could become a flashpoint for international tension which could result in significant destabilisation and the possibility of a Sunni/Shia confrontation in the Middle East. And the continued upsurge of violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan has the potential to export instability and terrorist violence to a much wider area. Looking further ahead, the process of rapid militarisation taking place in East Asia, a region with no effective security institutions to act as a moderating influence, could result in confrontation, in particular over access to natural resources.However, this is more of concern for the medium term.
In what way is the terrorism threat changing/emerging right now?
Many terrorist groups remain national in focus and so present only a localised threat, examples being ETA in Spain and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The biggest development in terrorism over the past 20 years has been the emergence of trans-national terrorism as exemplified by Al-Qaeda.There are three separate elements to this: Al-Qaeda “Central “, a relatively small group of activists located in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, affiliated groups like Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State of Iraq, all of which are pursuing local or regional objectives but subscribe to the Al-Qaeda jihadist ideology and independent cells, generally with no name, scattered around the world and able to operate either independently or under the direction of Al-Qaeda “Central”. This results in a threat which is multi-faceted and able to manifest itself in many different locations. The Al-Qaeda jihadist ideology has exercised a strong appeal to an entire generation of young Muslims and governments have so far been unable to contain its spread.
Will a change in US Government affect global terrorism?
It is possible that a new US administration will over time be able to develop an approach to foreign policy which is seen as less inimical to the Islamic world than has been the case for the past few years. This may be coupled with move away from the rhetoric of “Global War on Terror” towards a more nuanced approach which accepts that terrorism is a risk to be managed rather than something which can be eliminated. But at best this will be a slow process and it is unlikely to alter the mindset of those groups and individuals who have declared jihad against the West. What we are currently facing is a generational phenomenon and it will take a generation or more to work through.
What can businesses do to mitigate the threat of terrorism?
Businesses need to be aware of the risk posed by terrorism but also to have a realistic awareness of where that particular risk sits in relation to others they may face. So maintaining a good understanding of the current nature of the threat is important. Businesses also need to recognise their own responsibilities to mitigate the threat that terrorism poses both to their own operations and to the public at large. This involves treating security as a business enabler and as a fundamental aspect of corporate culture – which in any case makes good business sense for all sorts of reasons not connected with terrorism. With that mindset, it ought not to be difficult or expensive for businesses to harden themselves against terrorist attack.
Can business make a contribution to a more stable world?
Business already makes a significant contribution to a more stable world. Notwithstanding the risks we currently face, we should not lose sight of the fact that many parts of the world enjoy unprecedented security, stability, longevity and a standard of living previously the preserve of a small privileged elite, and global disparities in levels of prosperity are being ironed out. The business world has contributed massively to this state of affairs and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The global business can exercise significant influence over the behaviour of governments, and it can lead by example.
What single action by governments do you think would make a difference?
It is unlikely that any one action by a government or governments collectively will make that much difference. The key thing for effective government is to maintain a commitment to an open society which is receptive to new ideas and to debate.
What do you think the threat of terrorism is to the individual?
Statistically, an individual is far more likely to die or be injured in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack. And there are a range of other threats, such as pandemics, which represent a more immediate threat to individual safety than terrorism. The threat to individuals in the event of a terrorist attack is more likely to be indirect: major disruption or discontinuity in national or global systems following on from an attack rather than the event itself.
