Terrorism has arguably been one of the defining factors of our age. It frequently makes headlines, threatening or attacking governments, private business and ordinary citizens. And in many parts of the world, it has been one of the most important threats to peace, security and stability. But what does this exactly mean? What is the nature of this threat? Who or what is threatened, how, by whom and why? What can be done about it or how can we at least limit the impact of terrorism and make sure that terrorists do not make headlines and manage to scare us? These are just a handful of questions that will be addressed in this course that consists of three parts. First it focuses on the essence of terrorism as an instrument to achieve certain goals, in addition to an exploration of this phenomenon and the difficulties in defining it. The second part provides an overview of the state of the art in (counter) terrorism studies. Since ‘9/11’ terrorism studies have grown exponentially, reflecting the rise in perceived threats. But what has academia come up with? What theories, assumptions and conventional wisdom has it produced that could be of help in understanding terrorism and dealing with it? The most interesting results are examined and compared with empirical evidence with the aim to either stress their importance or to debunk them as myths. The final part looks into the implications and possibilities for policy making. The course ends with a module specifically designed to address one of today's most topical issue: the foreign fighter phenomenon.
4.5 Assumption: Terrorism can best be managed by a holistic approach
Loading...
En provenance du cours de Universiteit Leiden
Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Comparing Theory and Practice
1853 notes
À partir de la leçon
5 Assumptions on Counterterrorism
In this module, we will continue the work of module 3 and look into five assumptions on counterterrorism. It is highly relevant to keep investigating assumptions that underlie CT-policy, both from an effectiveness perspective (is it really countering terrorism?) but also because these policies often have a large impact on societies and might also have unintended consequences.
Rencontrer les enseignants
Edwin BakkerProf. dr.
Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University
Jeanine de Roy van Zuijdewijndrs.
Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University
[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.
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
