Terrorism from Newly Empowered Pressure Groups Poses a Threat

Firebombs, booby-trapped letters and packages, kidnappings, assaults and extortion—as these violent acts continue to proliferate, insurers have stepped up to offer financial protection.

Handling threats from terrorist organizations, which use coercive methods to promote their causes, is a growth area for some insurers. American International Group, Chubb Corp., Zurich Financial, London’s Hiscox plc and others have designed special programs for commercial enterprises aimed at mitigating economic losses and establishing protective procedures (see IJ June 26 and July 24, 2000), but they can only do so much.

The evolution of dissent
Is there an explanation? “What is new is the extent to which the democracy of the Internet allows for widespread, decentralized organization,” said Prof. Herbert E. Gooch, head of the Political Science Department at California Lutheran University.

The Internet is both a blessing and a curse. One of its unintended consequences is the empowerment it has given pressure groups to assert a new militancy and coordinate their actions on a global scale. The revolutionary advances in technology over the last few years and the logarithmic spread of people who use it, has fundamentally altered the way we send, receive and use information. It rivals in importance the invention of moveable type six centuries ago, the 19th Century’s telegraph and telephone, and the wireless communications developed in the early 20th Century.

While legitimate forms of dissent are a basic component of democracy, the form that dissent takes is open to abuse. Strikes, pickets, demonstrations and boycotts are tolerated, even expected, to assure that all are heard and that an open debate leads to effective resolution of competing interests within society. But a line is crossed when the protestors’ aim is to cause physical harm to opposing persons and/or their property.

Insurers now offer their clients the services of crisis management teams. Their efforts focus on averting hazardous situations, mitigating the damage when an event occurs, and negotiating with the groups involved. This usually involves some kind of payment, but certain situations have become more dangerous because they’re irrational.

Many of the groups and individuals who use threats and terror to further their political agenda aren’t open to negotiations, and can’t be bought off. They’re only satisfied when their demands are met, if then.

“Because they want so much, they are unwilling to settle for anything little,” Gooch said. Misfits, idealists and single-issue groups have always been with us, he indicated, “but [the WTO protests in] Seattle demonstrated what can be done, and it scared the hell out of the big guys to realize what small numbers can do to organize over a vast extent. The Internet collapses time and distance, and thus reduces the friction entailed in organizing groups of a few widely dispersed individuals. The few became a swarm which nearly caused the WTO meeting to be called off.”

Animal rights groups mobilize
It’s now comparatively easy for small groups to join others of the same persuasion, learn their goals, coordinate their strategy and share their methods. The increasingly wide-spread activities of “animal rights” groups in the U.S. and Europe typify the new face and muscle of single-issue interest groups
their resort to violent means to achieve their ends.

“Over the last few years, two factors have given rise to increasing concern,” said a senior consultant at Kroll Associates, one of the best-known international security firms, which works closely with AIG. “First, it has become obvious that animal rights activists are increasingly prepared to injure and kill people in pursuit of their cause. Secondly, there has been a dramatic shift from localized militancy to global threats. Both these factors make these groups even more dangerous and difficult to track.”

The consultant has reason to know. Following publication of her report on this subject, she received several death threats from people aligned with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a militant U.K.-based animal rights group, and her name cannot appear in this article for that reason.

Using violent means
While animal rights groups aren’t the only ones who step over the line from peaceful protest to terrorism, they are among the most active, vocal and globally organized. In 1999, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the biggest U.S. group, began a campaign against McDonald’s.

“During the same year, the ALF in Belgium set fire to a McDonald’s restaurant,” the consultant said. “This was the eighth reported firebomb attack against McDonald’s in Belgium over a nine-month period. In September 1999, an American animal rights activist was arrested in Belgium in connection with offenses committed in the U.S.A.”

The ALF is currently involved in a campaign to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences, virtually the only research and drug-testing laboratory left in the U.K. ALF members harass and threaten laboratory personnel. Three activists attacked its director with baseball bats last February. In March, seven PETA activists were charged with battery and arrested in Las Vegas following demonstrations against the investment bank Stephens Inc., which had made a substantial investment in Huntingdon, after U.K. lenders refused to back the company due to the animal rights controversy.

“These groups have demonstrated both the capability and the intent to maim and kill those who are involved, however marginally, with animal research,” the consultant said. “Envelopes containing razor blades and parcel bombs have been sent to ‘animal abusers.’ Letters sent with the razor blades stated that ‘murdering scum that kill defenseless animals…do not deserve to live. We will continue to wage war on animal abusers across the world.'”

Fanatics get global
Fanaticism plus the Internet spells trouble. Winston Churchill reportedly said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” In a similar vein, Oscar Wilde supposedly remarked that a “fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts when faced with certain defeat.”

Just a few people, convinced of the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of any sort of differing view, can now find others who share their convictions all over the globe. Fanaticism is no longer the province of the lonely misfit or the messianic demagogue; it’s gone global.

Many people embrace causes but eschew violent methods. Now a newly empowered minority sees the means—including violent ones—as justifying the ends. Activist agendas that step over the line and promote terrorist acts pose a real menace—to insurers and to society. Classic insurance can cover some losses—fire and theft, business interruption, kidnap, ransom and extortion, etc. But, as David Palmer, the European manager of AIG’s Crisis Management Division put it: “There’s no products liability insurance against terrorism.” In addition, it can strike anywhere—animal rights activists could just as easily attack the local butcher shop as McDonald’s.

Along with the use of the Internet, Gooch sees a definite rise in “single-issue politics,” which he defines as “groups in politics who are formed around a single issue or a singular answer to complex problems, whose litmus test for allegiance is only agreement with them.” He attributes it to a general trend toward political apathy and “an end of ideological beliefs prevailing around the U.S. and the globe.”

He also sounds a warning that has been heard before and too seldom heeded: “All evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. All single issues need to be heard is for those who would practice the normal political craft of trading and combining issues to remain quiet.”

The insurance community, as well as the general public, should become more aware of the threats posed by single-issue groups, and much more active in combating those who advocate or practice terrorism to achieve their ends.

To comment on this article, please send e-mail to ijtexas@insurancejournal.com.

Topics Catastrophe USA Natural Disasters