Difference between revisions of "Economic terrorism"

Latest revision as of 20:57, 26 September 2010

The concept of economic terrorism is disputed, and is generally used in a polemical or demagogic way to associate the term "terrorism" with a country, a company or a group accused of abuses.

Nevertheless, it is also used in a way more strictly defined to indicate an attempt at economic destabilization by a group. More precisely, in 2005 the Center of Security Policy of Geneva defined economic terrorism in the following terms:

Contrary to "economic warfare" which is undertaken by states against other states, "economic terrorism" would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives. These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.^[1]

Examples of usage

Phil McNulty of the Unite Union accused the management of Ineos of economic terrorism in April 2008 after it began temporarily shutting down its Grangemouth Refinery when faced with the prospect of industrial action, McNulty's implication being that Ineos was unfairly trying to use the potential economic impact of the shutdown to gain public support for their position. The company's management claimed that faced with strike action, they had no option but to shut down the site for safety reasons. The trade union themselves could be accused of economic terrorism as they are attempting to use the significant economic impact of their strike to gain greater media and public awareness of their complaint. The use of the phrase "economic terrorism" in this context is an example of sound byte media relations.^{[citation needed]}

In July 2009, Det Ansinn, Council President of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, used the term "economic terrorism"^[2] to describe the behavior of the Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority. The authority decided to stop issuing necessary documentation for permits, resulting in a loss of jobs, and businesses being driven from Doylestown. Through the abuse of its power, the authority had hoped to influence the borough's politics and discredit the borough professionals. Instead, the authority found itself defendant in lawsuits brought by residents, businesses, and the Borough of Doylestown.^[3]

See also

• Economic warfare
• Sabotage
• State terrorism

References

1. ↑ Roundtable on Economic TerrorismPDF (41.6 KiB), July 11–12, 2005, Lausanne.
2. ↑ http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2009/july/27/part-of-sewer-suit-could-soon-be-settled.html
3. ↑ http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2009/may/22/doylestown-sues-bucks-sewer-authority.html