GOA FOCAL POINT 1: Radicalisation/de-radicalisation
GOA FOCAL POINT 1: Radicalisation/de-radicalisation:
Adam Svendsen, PROJECT GOA Editor-in-Chief
Introduction – the ‘issue’:
The issue of ‘radicalisation’ has increasingly gained momentum in recent years. Not all comfortably, it has acquired a higher public profile, becoming widely reported in the mainstream media. No longer is the issue of ‘radicalisation’ merely an issue of concern to more ‘cloistered’ intelligence, security, and policy circles.
Because it is closely linked to concerns regarding ‘violent extremism’ directed against the general public, including the use of the terrorism tactic for state-subversive or other related strategic ‘ends’, the issue of ‘radicalisation’ has been driven up human to national and regional to global security agendas.
For instance, recently, we can cite expressed concerns that ‘Fears of Extremism Widen to Scandinavia’ as reported in the Wall Street Journal in the wake of the December 2010 Stockholm bombing. Not unconnected, in February 2011, an official Universities UK review urged that British universities had to be ‘vigilant’ regarding extremism on their campuses. This was while simultaneously protecting hard-won rights, such as the ‘freedom of speech’ and the ability to effectively communicate different views (see, e.g., as discussed in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12504954; see also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12752173).
Meanwhile, during March 2011, the US has embarked upon a controversial high-profile Congressional Hearing organised by Republican Peter King into ‘The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.’ (see, e.g.: http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4D90A51D14AB0/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031002045_pf.html). Boundaries extend further, as multiple ‘cases of concern’, displaying a range of different characteristics, continue to emerge (see, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/asia/02afghanistan.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12944851?print=true). Several governance challenges are presented.
Response:
By way of an active response to the issue of ‘radicalisation’ and its closely related phenomena, particularly during an era of ‘Public Safety’ and the ‘Protective State’, and, more broadly still, while the philosophy of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (‘R2P’) tries to be accomplished both at home and abroad, governments are increasingly looking to multifaceted ‘counter-extremism’ programmes for issue management ‘solutions’.
In essence, they are keen to undertake processes of ‘de-radicalisation’ or ‘counter-radicalisation’. An obvious example, which can be cited here, is the UK’s ‘PREVENT’ strand of its overall ‘CONTEST’ counter-terrorism strategy, which has been developing since 2003. For other initiatives suggested recently, see also: ‘“Reaching Out” – Promoting Community Engagement’ – via: http://www.cfr.org/uk/reaching-out-promoting-community-engagement-video/p24564 and ‘A New Approach to Counter-Radicalization’ – via: http://www.cfr.org/uk/new-approach-counter-radicalization-video/p24563.
The debate:
But, these ‘programmes’ remain subject to controversy, open to suggested adjustments, and they require being understood better through improved contextualisation processes (see, e.g., as argued in http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4AE8359535743/ and http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4ADEF3390A96C/ , ‘Review of the Prevent strategy’ – via: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/review-of-prevent-strategy/ and ‘Preventing or Enabling? Counter-radicalization Policy in a Divided Britain’ via: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/layout/set/print/content/view/full/23626?contextid734=128164&contextid735=128161&id=128164&lng=en&tabid=128161128164). Funding and other sponsorship questions likewise remain open, especially during an era of increased financial constraints (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20110315/tpl-quilliam-funding-crisis-a-solution-m-0a1c1a1.html).
Several interesting questions are raised. For instance:
- How should the issue of ‘radicalisation/de-radicalisation’ be best addressed?
- Are the ‘programmes’ that currently exist too narrowly targeted?
- Would a ‘process of education’ (see, e.g., as discussed in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/twt/archive/view/-/id/2142/) be sufficiently robust or active to address the issues of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’, and, even instances where it could be argued by some that a degree of ‘brainwashing’ is involved?
- Or do we need more ‘rigorous’ and ‘forward’ processes, such as associated with psychological operations and information operations (PSYOPs/INFOPs), and related techniques?
- Are ‘generally-applicable’ counter-radicalisation tools and methodologies adequate or are more specific responses required?
- How would you address these issues with a view to introducing greater change?
Please leave your thoughts and/or responses below.
*** All content is subject to PROJECT GOA terms & conditions – read here >>>
Comments (13)
2009 Videoconference Report
Extending the ‘freedom of speech’ and/or ‘freedom of communication’ dimension of this discussion, a recent New York Times blog posting offers some further insights – see: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/freedom-to-inflame/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
For a current case in the Netherlands, see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110413/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech/print
Further discussion-related links of interest:
http://www.cfr.org/uk/uk-us-approaches-countering-radicalization-intelligence-communities-internet/p24583 and http://www.cfr.org/uk/uk-us-approaches-countering-radicalization-intelligence-communities-internet–closing-remarks/p24592
For further prevailing concerns (and debates) about ‘campus extremism’ and its extent in the UK, see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13223026?print=true
Reportedly ‘extremism’ is still hard and challenging to spot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/05/anti-terror-strategy-uk-little-progress
There are also concerns that the recent death of bin Laden will encourage ‘revenge attacks’ from ‘sympathisers’:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/western-intelligence-sees-increased-chatter-on-possible-small-scale-bin-laden-revenge-attacks/2011/05/06/AFpkSw8F_print.html
See also:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-atlas-of-evil/story-e6frg6so-1226050946196
More recently, Germany continues to tackle alleged ‘extremists’ through a series of investigative raids:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110511/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_terrorism/print
While analysts from Brookings stress why continuing aid to Pakistan, particularly in the area of education, is essential in the wake of the killing of bin Laden:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0512_pakistan_aid_winthrop.aspx?p=1
Appropriate balances are always sought in intelligence and security enterprises.
However, worries continue to exist, suggesting that the further refining of tools is constantly required:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/23/counter-terror-stop-search-minorities/print
&
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/23/terrorism-act-muslim/print
During early June 2011, the UK updated its ‘PREVENT’ (counter-terrorism) strategy to address the issues of extremism and radicalisation:
For news coverage, see:
‘Colleges “complacent on extremism” – Theresa May’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13663602?print=true
‘Updated anti-extremism strategy published’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13679360?print=true
‘Is fight against terror about violence or extremism?’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13665156?print=true
A greater understanding of how we get from ‘radicalisation’ to terrorism also needs to be advanced – see, e.g., this essay from ISN:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/layout/set/print/content/view/full/23626?contextid734=129893&contextid735=129890&id=129893&lng=en&tabid=129890129893
Google Ideas – Google’s ‘think-tank’ is also looking to address the radicalisation/violent extremism issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/google-ideas-think-tank-gathering-former-extremists-to-battle-radicalization/2011/06/22/AGZIW0iH_print.html
The London defence and security think-tank, RUSI, has also developed commentary on the UK’s recent ‘PREVENT strategy’:
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4DF08BD1BB00F/
Universities also remain a main focus:
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4DF624BE8CCE8/
A recent RAND report, titled: ‘Radicalization, Linkage, and Diversity: Current Trends in Terrorism in Europe’
- accessible via: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP333.html
provides some further interesting insights into this topic.
Reportedly, on a regional basis, the European Union (EU) remains concerned about the issue of ‘radicalisation’:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/07/13/EU-says-radicalization-is-gravest-threat/UPI-22621310574511/
The recent horrific attacks in Norway clearly demonstrate that the issues of ‘violent extremism’ and ‘radicalisation’ are not confined merely to ‘Islamist’ and ‘jihadist’ areas of activity – as the following reports discuss:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24europe.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14266140?print=true
Further relevant analysis on the attacks in Norway is available from a wide-range of sources, see, e.g.:
Bruce Riedel, Oslo’s Clash of Civilizations, via Brookings:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0725_norway_riedel.aspx?p=1
Further pointing to the diversity of contemporary cases confronted, the UK and US also continue to prosecute their own range of cases.
By way of examples, in recent days, the BBC has reported that: ‘Blogger who encouraged murder of MPs jailed’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14344199?print=true
‘Fort Hood “plot” soldier Naser Abdo defiant in court’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14349728?print=true