[MUSIC] In the previous video, we investigated the idea that we could recognize a terrorist by way of profiling. In this video we will explore and analyze the assumption that terrorists can be deradicalized. In other words, we look into the idea that individuals change their attitudes and behavior and leave terrorism behind. Is that indeed possible, or just wishful thinking? What can we learn from past experience? And what have scholars and experts to say about this? Before we will address these questions, we first have to define the term. What is deradicalization? What is meant by this term? Well, deradicalization, like most concepts, can have different meanings to different people. And I will use the definition by John Horgan, who did a lot of research into this field, into radicalization and deradicalization. And he regards it as a social and psychological process whereby an individual's commitment to, and involvement in violent radicalization is reduced to the extent that they are no longer at risk of involvement and engagement in violent activity. The deredicalization can also be understood as a policy or program. So not only a process, an individual process or group process but also as a government or civil society program. And that program seeks to reverse the radicalization process for those already are particularly radicalized or help them to disengage from radical or extreme groups they are involved in of which they are members. And it's important to say that deradicalization is not radicalization in reverse. These are two very distinct processes. Who has said that it is possible to deradicalize a terrorist? According to Angel Rabasa and his colleagues at RAND Washington, this is a simple fact that can be observed. And in a report in 2013, they stated just as there are processes through which an individual becomes an extremist, there are also processes through which an extremist comes to renounce violence, leaves a group or movement, or even rejects a radical worldview. Well, the last part is contested. Do people really give up their radical worldviews? Is that possible? And is it possible to actively deradicalize persons and, if so, how? Well, these are of course very important questions for those who fight terrorism, who deal with terrorism. The first proof that it is possible are individuals who left terrorism behind and who are now involved in counter radicalization and deradicalization projects. They turn from terrorists into experts that try to help people to prevent them from joining terrorist organizations. Now, within the field of terrorism studies there are a number of them that are quite well known. Here, you have three examples of them. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who worked for a Wahhabi charity that proved to be an al-Qaeda financier, and who is now director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which is based in Washington, and he's a scholar in the field of terrorism and counterterrorism studies. I'm also proud to say that he's a former guest researcher at the ICCT Den Haag, just a few offices away from this office. And then Norman Benotman, who was a leading figure of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group active in Afghanistan. And who is now a senior analyst at the British Quilliam Foundation. and he, for instance, wrote an open letter to Bin Laden in 2010 recommending him to hold your violence and reconsider your aims and strategy. And then an example from Northern Ireland, Henry Robinson, who joined the Official Irish Republican Army in 1979. And who left it, and in 1990 was the co-founder of the foundation Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Besides these individuals who left terrorism behind, also known as formers or former terrorists, there are deradicalization programs. Well, in general these deradicalization programs are of two types. The first category focuses on individual ideological deradicalization using psychological or religious counseling. To produce a change of mind, a change of attitude, and in the end, also change of behavior. And the second category aims for collective deradicalization, using for instance, political negotiations to obtain a type of change of behavior. And it includes measures such as ceasefires or the decommissioning of arms. In Europe there are many examples of deradicalization programs that are aimed at right wing extremists, especially in the Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, as well as in Germany and the Netherlands. For instance in Norway an exit model was developed based on research conducted by [FOREIGN] And this model was also used in Sweden, where it consists of five phases, from motivation and disengagement to being re, well, making sure that these people are part of society again with settlement, reflection, and stabilization. And on the other side of the globe in Indonesia, there are quite a number of deradicalization programs that mainly are aimed at prisoners. And, some of them, and prisoners were, that were involved in Jihadi terrorism. And some of them are now closely cooperating with the police. And in Saudi Arabia such programs also aim mainly at prisoners focus on rehabilitation through religious re-education and psychological counseling. And then in Colombia, they tried to disengage not only prisoners, but also active members of the FARC. And the Colombian judiciary tries to facilitate this by suspending the militant's trial in an attempt to encourage and sustain, their demobilization. There the keyword is demobilization, and not deradicalization. But the same idea is the basic idea is to make sure that they leave terrorism behind, and perhaps also change their attitudes and behavior. Well, in other words, many examples from around the world. Each with a different size and scope, methods and goals. What do experts and academics have to say about deradicalization and deradicalization programs? Well, about five years ago, quite a few of them pointed at a lack of attention, expertise, and research into this field. But in recent years there has been an increase in the amount of studies and the amount of programs that has helped us to gain more insight into the challenges and possibilities of deradicalization in general and that of programs in particular. it also raises new questions. And an important one is whether or not one can speak of deradicalization, as defined by John Horgan. When a person leaves a terrorist group behind, but not his or her radical ideas. Is that deradicalization, or should we just, call that, call that differently? For instance, label it disengagement and nothing more. Well the prevailing opinion today is that leaving terrorism behind does not necessarily mean that the person is also deradicalized. He or she can still have very radical ideas and they often have. And many deradicalization programs are in fact primarily aiming for this idea of leaving terrorism behind there aiming for disengagment and also much deradicalization. And I guess that that is more cost effective and also from a point of view from society it should be given more priority as change behavior matters more then changed ideas. What about the success of these programs? Do they work, and are they proof of the assumption that it is possible to deradicalize a terrorist? John Horgan is skeptical about certain types of programs especially the ones that aim for demobilization, defection deescalation and rehabilitation. And in his eyes this is not the same as deradicalization. Demobilization is not the same as deradicalization. Well I guess he's right and he seems to suggest that many of the person that goes through these programs might still pose a risk of involvement and engagement in violent activity in the future. And there are indeed quite a few examples of graduates of these programs that return to violence, that return to terrorism after they were released, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia. But it should be noted that the programs in this particular country were enormous. They processed more than 4000 detainees but there have been a number of people who after that ended up in the ranks of terrorist organizations. So, successful or not, well here's an example or study that indicates that there has been some success. A survey of deradicalization programs conducted by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue based on 30 brief case studies from around the world show that, under certain conditions, programs can be effective. And they also listed a number of very interesting recommendations and important lessons from these cases and one of them is that programs are effective and this is very important when they are voluntary and that personal commitment is vital. It makes sense, but also the studies show that that is an very important element. For a copy of this very interesting report well, see the list of recommended readings. All in all, it's clear that deradicalization is indeed possible. Many people leave terrorism behind. Some thanks to deradicalization programs and some also leave behind their radical ideas. In sum, we define the term and notice a difference between deradicalization and disengagement. We've seen an increase in both the number of programs, and the number of studies into this field. Most of the deradicalization programs primarily aim at disengagement rather than deradicalization. There are successes of individual and group deradicalization Therefore, we regard the assumption that deradicalization is possible to be true. In the next video, we will investigate the idea that decapitation of terrorist organizations and terrorist groups work.
