[MUSIC] In the last video, we discussed the assumption that terrorism cannot be defeated. This video focuses on the attempts to deal with terrorism. And many have said that this is best done, or best dealt with by way of a holistic or comprehensive approach. Well, let us compare that assumption with empirical evidence and expert and scholarly literature. Let me first explain what is meant with a holistic approach in counter-terrorism. Which is also often referred to as a comprehensive approach or a wide approach or a grand strategy. While the latter term has been defined by Martha Crenshaw as a more inclusive conception that explains how a state's full range of resources can be adopted to achieve national security. So it's full range of resources to achieve national security. Well in general, descriptions of a holistic or comprehensive approach of terrorism or any other complex society of problem often includes the phrase, involving a wide a range of instruments or involving a wide range of actors. And with regard to terrorism, it often includes the word preventive and repressive measures, or soft and hard measures or soft and hard approaches. Well, in addition it frequently refers to the need to deal with the complexity and multidimensional nature of both terrorism and counter-terrorism. And most descriptions of the approach, list a range of concrete policy areas, from the procurement of intelligence to the prosecution of perpetrators of terrorist attacks. And the question remains, whether or not such a wide approach is the best way to deal with terrorism. Well, there are quite a number of important politicians and well-known public figures that have stressed the importance or stressed the need for a holistic approach or a comprehensive approach to deal with terrorism. One of them is the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In remarks delivered to the United Nations Security Council's open debate on combating terrorism in Africa, he said that the success in the combat against groups such as the Nigeria based Boko Haram or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Somalia based Al-Shabaab would require greater and more holistic efforts. And he said, and he has a quote. MIlitary advances important as they are, will not themselves bring an end to terrorism in Africa. This struggle must go forward on many fronts, including addressing the conditions that are conducive to the spread of terrorism. And Mr. Ban Ki-moon added that the lack of development and the absence of the rule of law allow terrorists to recruit across the communities and build their ranks. Also Pakistan's Prime Minister stressed the importance of a holistic approach to deal with terrorism. At the ceremony at the National Police Academy in Islamabad in February 2013, Raja Pervez Ashraf said amongst others, we have to adopt a holistic approach to combat the menace. I urge police to maintain close relationships with the local community. Interaction with the community would not only provide police information about anti-national and anti-social elements, but also deny criminals refuge. This is only possible if they, and he means the police, are not feared but respected. And the plea of Ban Ki-moon and the Pakistan Prime Minster for comprehensive approach are very much in line with counter terrorism approach of the United Nations as formulated in 2006. In September of that year, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. This strategy is the first ever comprehensive collective and internationally approved framework to tackle the problem of terrorism. And it consists of four parts or four pillars. The first pillar is addressing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. The second pillar says, preventing and combating terrorism. And then. It also strengthens the need for building states capacity to prevent and combat terrorism and strengthen the United Nation's systems role in this regard. And then finally it says, ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law are the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism. But with these pillars the strategy anchors the United Nations, a counter-terrorism work into the broader agenda of this organization. That is active on many fronts, many areas, and in many countries. And it also says the four pillars approach, according to the United Nations itself, also encourages member states to take similarly integrated approaches to counter terrorism on the national level. In other words, with this document, United Nations suggests that other countries or countries in general should also take a holistic approach when dealing with terrorism. What about counter-terrorism approaches at national levels? Let us have a look at the Indonesian example. The Indonesian white or holistic approach. An approach that has been studied very much by scholars both in Indonesia and outside Indonesia. Well, here you have the opinion of and Indonesian scholar Noorhaidi Hasan, and he said that Indonesia in recent years has developed a model for responding to Islamist radicalization and terrorism that carefully combines hard and soft measures. And the main approach shifted from one base of maintaining security with an important role for the military to one base on law enforcement in which the police is the lead agency. Nevertheless, the hard approach is still very important and not without controversy. Indonesia's special forces counter terrorism squad in 2010 alone arrested 100 people and killed 16. And the latter, of course, raised questions by human rights organizations, both at home and abroad. But not withstanding these concerns, Indonesia today is less prone to serious terrorist attacks than it was in the early 2000s. And that's partly thanks to the hard approach. However, the police also achieved a degree of success with soft measures such as their deradicalisation programs for detainees. I already mentioned them in an earlier video. While these programs have led to leading militants working with the police and other authorities. And as part of their holistic approach, the Indonesian authorities also very much welcomed the role of civil society. That has been working on grass roots level to strengthen people's awareness to end resilience against the threats posed by radicals and terrorists that seek to. In fact, local populations with violent ideologies. According to Noorhaidi Hasan, the Indonesian experience is not only very interesting, but also valuable to other countries. But how do we know the approach by the Indonesians or the United Nation's global counter-terrorism strategy works, or in other words, how to test the assumption that terrorism can best be dealt with by way of our holistic or comprehensive approach, how to measure that. Well, let's first have a look what experts and scholars have to say about this. For instance, Bruce Hoffman, one of the leading scholars in the field of terrorism and counter-terrorism studies, in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives that took place two weeks after 9/11, stated that only a comprehensive or holistic approach will work. And he said, the articulation and development of a comprehensive, fully coordinated national strategy is not simply an intellectual exercise, but must be at the foundation of any effective counter-terrorism policy. But failure to do so, he said, to this US House of Representatives, has undermined the counter-terrorism efforts of other democratic nations. And referring to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Hoffman said, what is now therefore clearly needed is a comprehensive effort, that seeks to knit together more tightly and provide greater organizational guidance and focus to the formidable array of capabilities and instruments the US can bring together. Or can bring to bear in the struggle against terrorism. I guess the key words here are cooperation, coordination, as well as focus. Also, in my home country, the Netherlands, both the authorities and many scholars seem to agree on a need for a holistic or comprehensive approach. And the Netherlands National Counter Terrorism Strategy. I've got a copy of it here. The National Counter Terrorism Strategy 2011 to 2015 of the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, is clearly based on the assumption that terrorism can best be dealt with by way of a comprehensive approach. Well, it's main point of departure is that an effective approach to terrorism can only succeed if not only the acts of violence themselves are tackled but also the process that preceded these acts. And of course different responses of a more repressive nature are required for those who have already taken steps towards being repaired. To commit violence, and of course, especially, for those who are on the point of doing so. Thus, this strategy combines both preventive and repressive measures as part of a Dutch comprehensive approach. It sounds good. But does it really work? Some experts and scholars are not so sure terrorism is best dealt with by way of a holistic approach. And the following arguments have been put forward by various authors. The first is the problem of a comprehensive strategy is that it does not prioritize a finite amount of resources and attention nor does it provide an assessment of what is. Most likely to be effective or what not. And in second, it also tends to overlook the enormous pressure on governments and agencies to so something here and now. Well, a comprehensive approach is needed to prevent terrorism in the long run, traditional and ad hoc security measures that detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist operations still remain a critical component in the fight against terrorism. And finally, and perhaps the most important criticism is that it's easier said than done. I mentioned it before, it sounds good but does it work? A comprehensive approach, a wide approach, a holistic approach. Well more often than not such comprehensive approaches leave very important questions on answers like who is responsible and who takes the lead. Who has the financial and political means. Or how to make all of these various actors and instruments to cooperate, etc. Again, this is all seems to make sense. So who is right? Ban Ki-moon and others who support the idea of a comprehensive approach, or those that have a more skeptical take on this. How to measure the effectiveness of holistic approaches to counter terrorism, and how to compare these approaches with others' more, one dimensional approaches. Well, that brings us to one of the most striking and more serious flaws in both counter-terrorism and the study of counter-terrorism, and that is the lack of evaluation studies. Well, in 2006, three authors, Lum, Kennedy and Sherley published an often quoted article in which they were looking for evaluation research. And they found out that there's almost a complete absence of high quality scientific evaluation on counterterrorism strategies. Academia has produced very little to evaluate strategies, measures, etc. This is an article from 2006, but it still holds today. Unfortunately, this is also the case with regard to governmental studies and reports. Despite the fact that governments have spent millions, billions on counter-terrorism many resources, few of them have looked into the effectiveness of their policies and approaches. And it should be mentioned of course that effectiveness of counter-terrorism measure is hard to assess, even when focusing on an individual measure. And the idea of assessing a country's holistic or comprehensive approach with all its influence and all its actors is of course very difficult. Where does that lead us when trying to answer the question whether or not terrorism can best be dealt with by way of a holistic or comprehensive approach? Well, there is relatively little empirical evidence but most scholars seem to agree that terrorism requires a wide, holistic or comprehensive approach or grand strategies. And against that background, I guess we should label the assumption as partly true but let me immediately add to that. More research is needed, especially evaluation studies. What did we learn? First, we described the notion of a holistic approach to counter-terrorism which goes under different names. We also observed that many politicians and scholars, believe there is a need for a wide, or holistic approach to deal with terrorism. We also saw that there are few evaluations studies, and that there is not much empirical evidence that clearly shows that such a comprehensive or holistic approach is indeed the most effective approach. Nonetheless we labeled the assumption partly true. Next week we'll discuss the implications of what we've learned this week and the previous ones for dealing with terrorism. How can we apply those insights? And what can we learn from past experience and the academic literature in order to decrease the threat of terrorism, and to limit its impacts on politics, and society.
