I am not aware of any empirical data that shows a causal link between poverty and terrorism. If there was such a link then we would see poor people and communities more involved in committing/planning terrorist attacks than the current data shows. Poverty by itself simply does not have the direct radicalizing effect on individuals.

In fact, the majority of empirical studies on terrorism provides little indication of correlations between socioeconomic factors such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment and the incidence of terrorism. For example, the data in Alan Kruger and David Latin's global study of the origins and targets of terrorism lend little support to the notion that poverty leads to terrorism, instead suggesting that limited political rights and civil liberties tend to be the most influential in inciting people to terrorism and country-level economic factors such as poverty and high unemployment, tend to be most relevant in determining the targets of terrorism [see here (pdf)]

As analysis of the home-grown terrorist problem in Europe reveal, the reasons that may push certain second and third generation Muslim youth toward violence are generally not specific enough and include traits shared by a larger population that deals with similar situations in very different ways. In fact, as Matthew alludes to, the process of radicalization is a complex interaction of factors, external (such as poverty, perceived humiliation, radical ideology, and American foreign policy), social (e.g., social identification mechanisms or social network dynamics) and individual (e.g., psychological characteristics or personal experiences), which do not necessarily lead to violence and not every radical becomes a terrorist.

The challenge for the US and other government and non-government stakeholders is to better understand the mix of factors that are relevant to the particular country/region and develop policies and work with the right mix of government and non-government actors to try to address these factors. Given the heightened sensitivities surrounding any program aimed at countering the radicalization process that has the "Made in America" label on it, however, it is important for the US to work with (or under the cover of) partners, such as the UN, whenever possible (and certainly more than it currently does) in developing and implementing programs in the wide range of necessary fields (e.g., social/economic/political).

Poverty, in and of itself, does not lead to terrorism. But it can be part of the problem, as the case of disenfranchised Muslim communities in Europe make clear. In the words of one European official I recently interviewed on this issue, "poverty is rarely one of the key radicalizers, but unemployment can be, especially when combined with engaging in criminal activity and being exposed to a radical narrative." Radical ideologies are better able to take root when discrimination and the lack of opportunity for economic growth are put in terms of a global narrative that weave personal experiences in the suburbs north of Paris together with the plight of fellow Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine or Iraq to personalize far away conflicts and paint a global, ideological struggle. That global narrative is where foreign policy becomes one part of this larger tapestry as well, especially when presented through a radical ideological lens. To my mind the ideological component is the most critical and overlooked component here.

As several studies have demonstrated, organized radicalization and recruitment (let alone training and the provision of funds and weapons) has long been central to the formation of a terrorist--that is, someone who is not only angry but willing to act on that anger in a violent manner. Today, that organizational function is in some cases carried out more passively via exposure to ideas and, perhaps more critically, a sense of belonging to a group of like-minded followers, on the Internet. But even among the increasing number of "homegrown" terrorists, European officials stress the importance of pre-existing personal vulnerabilities that serve as "push factors"as well as exposure to "radicalizers" - in person or online - over a period of time.

No single psychological profile describes the wide variety of "push factors" that make individuals vulnerable to the kind of radicalization that can eventually lead them to become terrorists. One study, by Tel Aviv University researchers Shaul Kimhe and Shmuel Even, developed a series of prototypical categories that combine both clinical and social psychological causes among Palestinians who resorted to terrorism. A telling corollary to their primary findings, however, is that whatever the typology of the potential terrorist--"religious fanatic," "nationalist fanatic," "avenger," or "exploited"--every type requires "a social environment that is supportive of such an attack; media that disseminates the information among the supportive population; spiritual leadership that encourages such attacks; and financial and social assistance for families of suicide terrorists after their death." Together, these conditions create a "comprehensive social environment [that] may be referred to as the 'culture of suicide terrorists' that has been created within Palestinian society." [See here.]

Social preconditions by themselves do not make a suicide bomber. While poverty, humiliation, occupation, personal suffering, shame, or loss of a loved one can all be powerful radicalizing factors, they almost always require an organized element to channel that anger and frustration -- actively and in person or passively on the Internet -- into a desire to kill and maim random civilians (as opposed, for example, to a desire simply to kill oneself). It is for this reason that groups subscribing to a radical ideology invest so much time, effort and money in media campaigns aimed at radicalizing and directly or indirectly recruiting future members.

I certainly believe there are links between poverty and terrorism, but particularly in terms of the West's so-called Global War on Terror, I believe more important are other variables such as the ones mentioned in the prompt, e.g. perceived humiliation, grievances w/ U.S. foreign policy, radical ideology etc.

For instance, certain of the key 9/11 hijackers were reasonably middle (or lower-middle class) young adults residing in European cities. And while others on this E-mail chain far more knowledgeable than me might correct me, the 15 or so Saudi hijackers (of the 19 total) I don't recall having had hugely impoverished backgrounds, though certainly they were not enjoying the fruits of the petro-dollar gusher as are their local elites.

Still, I'd think, these terrorists were not the hugely impoverished peasants inhabiting the border-lands of South Waziristan and Afghanistan, say. (Incidentally, to mount "A Team" style sophisticated attacks in the West, almost as a tactical 'gating-item', once must enjoy a modicum of education and 'Westerness' to evade heightened security measures, pointing to those most dangerous potential terrorists not necessarily being those mired in the worst of endemic 3rd world poverty).

Meantime, and putting aside the famous example of Mohammed Atta and Co., one might query too whether the Madrid train bombers (mostly young Moroccans) or the July 7th London attackers (mostly home-grown and by the accounts I'm familiar with not desperately poor either), were primarily driven to action by poverty. I suspect not, but for avoidance of doubt, please note this is not to argue a key part of our overall anti-terror strategy mustn't include economic development initiatives in critical areas like the Maghreb, Pakistan, etc, as doubtless poverty alleviation (not least given the demographic boom through MENA and South Asia of younger citizens) will become an increasingly critical challenge for policy-makers in the coming years/decades. I view poverty therefore as a tremendously unhelpful variable in all of this, but not necessarily a primary cause.

Indeed, I'd argue in this Internet and global cable age where IDF airstrikes in, say, southern Lebanon inflame televised opinion in the Islamic World from Tangier to Jakarta, it is more foreign policy actions of various powers, particularly those stoking feelings of humiliation, that create the impetus for (mostly) young Muslim males to join the jihadi cause. This said, local autocracies frustrating freedom of expression are a major part of this toxic brew as well, of course.

Related, I believe there is a 'hard-core' of ideological true-believers for whom radical ideology--and radical ideology alone--provide the requisite motivational impulse towards terror (say restoration of the much discussed caliphate). But I believe there are a good number of 'fence-sitters', some perhaps even tempted towards the faux romance of terrorism by boredom and feelings of alienation while residing in the West, who end up pursuing violent tactics not as much because of ideology per se necessarily, but 'hot topics' like the foreign policy of the U.S., which in turn lead to occasional feelings of perceived humiliation, leading them towards acts of terrorist horror.

Last, I would say the most underestimated cause (per the question prompt) is very likely the occupation of Islamic lands by foreign powers. This has historically been a major cause of Palestinian terrorism (see, over the years, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP etc), and see too Chechnya, Lebanon (Hezbollah notably), and more. This being said, the transnational al-Qaeda variety of terrorism has sought to conflate festering conflicts/occupation/humiliation--and then somewhat fuse same w/ 'purist' ideology--so as to thereby be immunized some to the ebbs and flows of localized disputes, the better so there appear to perennially be 'near' and 'far' enemies, the scope of the jihadist playing field is global, and progress in the Middle East peace process, say (were we ever to see any again), would not be a reason to lay down arms.

On Day One is a social media site sponsored by the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Campaign that asks everyday people to offer their ideas about what the next president should do, figuratively "on day one." In preparation for this discussion, we solicited On Day One users for their ideas on how the next president should take on the threat of global terrorism and many people responded by suggesting that if the United States does more to alleviate poverty in the developing world the terrorist threat could be mitigated.

But is terrorism actually linked to poverty? Is it linked to other externalities, like grievances with American foreign policy, perceived humiliation, nationalist political objectives, radical ideology --- or all of the above? Which is most dominant? Which is most underestimated in current approaches to terrorism?

For the next seven days, UN Dispatch, The Washington Note and On Day One will host an online discussion about international terrorism and offer recommendations for how the next United States president can meet these challenges. Leading this discussion is an international panel of experts on terrorism, counter-terrorism, international law, and national security. We are honored to have Steve Clemons as a moderator and co-host on The Washington Note.

Our panel of experts (full bios here) include:

Peter Bergen, New America Foundation

Paul Cruickshank, NYU Center on Law and Security

Greg Djerejian, The Belgravia Dispatch

Stephanie Kaplan, Woodrow Wilson Center

Matthew Levitt, Washington Institute on Near East Policy

Alastair Millar, Center on Global Counter Terrorism Cooperation

Eric Rosand, Center on Global Counter Terrorism Cooperation

Yosri Fouda, Al Jazeera

Stay tuned for the first discussion prompt.

Serious analysts can legitimately debate whether ICC involvement in Sudan will help or hurt prospects for peace in the country. But it becomes far easier to blindly damn the ICC when you distort the rules under which the Court operates.

The ICC can acquire jurisdiction in a country in one of three ways. First, the country in question can be an "ICC country," a signatory to the 2002 Rome Statute that established the Court. Second, a host government can invite the ICC to begin proceedings in its country. In Uganda, for example, President Yoweri Museveni requsted that the ICC prosecute members of the Lord's Resistance Army, which had been terrorizing the northern part of his country for over twenty years. Third, if a country is not a party to the ICC and does not request the Court's involvement, the Security Council can vote to authorize ICC jurisdiction.

David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey, two lawyers writing in The Wall Street Journal op-ed page, acknowledge -- albeit with the minimalizing sarcasm of quotation marks -- that this last method was the one by which the ICC obtained jurisdiction in Sudan.

It [the ICC] can also follow-up on "referrals" from the U.N. Security Council. In 2005, the council made such a referral with respect to Sudan's campaign of mass murder in Darfur.

Correct. This was no mere recommendation; it was a formal authorization, and, according to the ICC's charter, it provided a legitimate means for the Court to operate even in a country that had not signed the Rome Statute and that opposed ICC involvement. Yet Rivkin and Casey backtrack in their very next sentence:

Under international law norms, the ICC can prosecute citizens of signatory states. But it cannot prosecute citizens of nations, such as Sudan, that are not party to the ICC.

The ICC is operating in Sudan. It has been for over three years. The only way for it to suspend its jurisdiction is for the Security Council to authorize it to do so. This leverage should be interpreted as a new opportunity to press for peace, not, as Rivkin and Casey dramatically bemoan, as a "blow" that "takes Darfur's second-best hope for peace -- a diplomatic settlement -- off of the table." The ICC's action should be seen as a "blow," but as a blow to the idea of impunity, not to peace negotiations that have not even yet gotten off the ground, let alone on the table.

Via the UN News Center, an announcement that the UN is helping to create global standards for the ways in which rescue workers can notify the next-of-kin of injured people.

Next-of-kin information for injured people will now be easier to find thanks to a new telephone code from the United Nations telecommunications agency.

By adding prefixes such as "01," "02" and "03" before contacts -- for example, "01husband" -- in a person's mobile telephone directory, rescuers will be able to notify relatives or friends worldwide.

"This simple addition to a person's next-of-kin or nominated contact details has the potential to greatly reduce stress for overworked emergency workers around the world," said Malcolm Johnson, Director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau. "Anything that can be done to reduce the workload of these remarkably brave people and assist in getting injured people the right care and attention is commendable."

The code "ICE" -- short for "In Case of Emergency" -- has appeared in some mobile phones in English-speaking nations, but ITU members stressed the need for a global unified standard that would be effective regardless of language or script.

Add this to the list of "little ways" that international cooperation can make life easier for everyone around the world.

>>Iraq - Kurdish lawmakers boycotted critical legislation Tuesday that sets new rules for provincial elections. The sticking point was the status of Kirkuk, which Kurdish lawmakers believe should come under the control of their autonomous region. The bill, which would bring more power to Iraq's regions and empower Sunnis, is now unlikely to be ratified by the Presidency Council, headed by President Jalal Talabani, an ethnic Kurd.

>>Thailand/Cambodia - Thousands of Thai and Cambodia troops have moved into disputed land near the Preah Vihear temple on the border. Tensions were sparked when UNESCO listed the temple as a Cambodian World Heritage Site, which prompted protests by local Thais and their subsequent arrest by Cambodian authorities. Thailand's Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has suggested that Cambodia's Prime Minister, Hun Sen is just using the row to gin up votes for the imminent general election.

>>India - India's government survived a vote of confidence on Tuesday, clearing the way for a controversial nuclear energy deal with the United States. At one point during the debate, opposition members carried duffel bags full of cash into parliament, alleging that it had been used to try to buy votes. Under the deal, which still needs to be approved by the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the U.S. Congress, India would open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspectors in exchange for the ability to develop its civilian nuclear program without having to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

• Another Darfur Peacekeeper Attacked, Another Opponent of ICC Action in Sudan
• Nabbed!

Africa

• Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe crisis talks to start in South Africa
• Zimbabwe - EU widens Zimbabwe sanctions
• Sudan - South Sudan's Kiir joins calls to delay ICC warrant
• Sudan - Sudanese president visits Darfur
• South Africa - S African police evict migrants

Americas

• U.S. - U.S. Offers a Subsidy Concession at Trade Talks
• Colombia - Vote Sought to Permit 3rd Presidential Term
• Venezuela - Chavez calls for Russia alliance
• Brazil - Brazil boom breeds new generation of millionaires
• Mexico - Kidnapped Koreans freed in Mexico

East Asia

• China - Last Three Gorges Dam migrants evacuate as water rises
• China - Bus Blasts Not Linked to Olympics, China Says
• Thailand - Thais brace for border clashes with Cambodia

Europe

• Bosnia - UK and US saw through Karadzic disguise
• Greece - Suit to Prohibit Use of 'Lesbian' Dismissed
• Bulgaria - EU to suspend funds to Bulgaria

Middle East

• Iraq - Kurds Object to Iraqi Provincial Election Law
• Iraq - Britain Plans Pullout of Most of Its Iraq Force
• Israel - Obama gives pledge on Israel ties
• Iran - Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran

Oceania

• Australia - Australian core inflation hits 17-year high

Russia and Former Republics

• Russia - Manned spaceship design unveiled
• Russia - BP Will Withdraw Its Engineers in Russia

South Asia

• India - Rahul Gandhi's pro-nuclear speech disrupted by heckling in Indian parliament
• Pakistan - Senior Zardari security officer killed in Pakistan
• Pakistan - Taliban arrest in Pakistan raises Western hopes
• Pakistan - Action call over Pakistan missing
• Bangladesh - Bangladesh to receive $1.3bn food aid