The Political Economy of Terrorism (2019) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Briefing Paper, 2008
The ad hoc briefing paper “Preventing violent radicalisation and terrorist recruitment in the EU - The threat to Europe by radical Islamic terrorist groups” provides an original analysis and evaluation of the different strategies that are meant to deal with such phenomena, as well as their effectiveness. This perspective takes into account the dynamics of actions/reactions between the various parts involved in violence and its repression, thus going beyond recommendations mainly aiming at controlling the networks through which individuals enter the radicalizing dynamics, in a “worst-case scenario” perspective. The core point of the paper is to transgress the different forms of self-censorship that exist in the field of the counterterrorist public policies, by insisting upon the fact that some of the measures taken can contribute to the radicalisation, or more accurately, to the dynamics of escalation. The priority is then to move the focus, while widening the angle of the problem, to highlight the interactions not only between clandestine organisations and reference fields but also public authorities, journalists and others. The question of the radicalisation must be reconsidered and redefined as a subsidiary of the questions on escalation and de-escalation dynamics of the conflicts. The ad hoc briefing paper is thus structured as follows: the first part aims at understanding the radicalisation processes; the second part deals with the questions of clandestineness, radicalisation and recruitment; the third part deals with the dilemma faced by authorities and their policies, that can either lead to an escalation or a de-escalation, depending on whether they tend to mimetic rivalry or distanciation. Finally, the paper provides certain policy recommendations, mainly based on favouring distanciation, taking into account the pernicious effects of intensified measures of control, repression or war on violent radicalisation, and controlling and supervising counter radicalisation.
The Georgetown Security Studies Review (GSSR) , 2017
Cities have been the main targets of European jihadism in recent years. From Madrid in 2004 to Brussels in 2016, European capitals have suffered terrorist atrocities at the hands of home-grown and foreign terrorists, some of which had acquired combat experience in Syria and Iraq. As much as 75% of European citizens live in urban centers and existing evidence points that attacks on cities may continue in the future. The European Union’s response to this security threat has been multifaceted and has increasingly targeted both the recruitment side of terrorism (supply) as well as the reasons why political violence is tolerated by communities of reference (demand). Cities have been at the forefront of a comprehensive strategy to integrate counter-terrorist and preventive strategies at the municipal level. The main goal of these policy experiments is to prevent extremism by isolating violent radicals from their supporters and sympathizers. Most European jihadists knew their host societies well and disguised themselves within communities of immigrants and diasporas. Terrorist cells often hid in neighborhoods where relative deprivation and criminality are rife and where their activities went undetected. Cities are obvious settings in which to implement the motto “think globally and act locally”.
Rethinking Radicalisation and Counter-Terrorist Strategies
'Radicalization' has been a keyword in the public discourse on terrorism. Yet the answer to what exactly it is, remains fuzzy. This poses a challenge not only to the scholars who aim to study it but also, to the practitioners, who aim to tackle and prevent it. Despite the ambiguities surrounding the process of radicalization, there, however, exists a set of preconceived notions about it. Islamist extremist ideology is always taken as a key factor or as a starting point in these notions. This in turn leads to faulty policy measures for tackling the problems of terrorism and radicalization, which eventually turn counterproductive. This is where the paper tries to answer its central question: 'why the current policy measures are turning out to be ineffective in tackling terrorism?' This paper attempts to bring into focus a more nuanced understanding of radicalization. By arguing that radicalization is not an individual process driven by an ideology, the paper tries to bring into focus different pathways to terrorism and how they have undergone a vast change in the era of globalization, and how that has a bearing on effective counter-terrorist strategies. The argument that this paper is trying to make is that, due to faulty understanding of what entails radicalization, the authorities are coming up with ineffective counter-terrorist policies, which lead to violations of UN Charter, Rule of Law, International law (Torture convention, Humanitarian law, Jus in Bellum) and Human Rights laws. This gives a free hand to the authorities and security forces without any repercussions or, transparency. Special attention has been given to UK's Prevent Policy, America's "War on Terror" strategy and the recent United Nations (UN) Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review, 2018 to substantiate this claim. These strategies are compared with European Union's approach to counterterrorism and radicalization, to offer a contrast. After giving a better understanding of radicalization, the paper then turns to the policy implications emanating from this nuanced understanding. Taking into consideration what Kundalini and Walzer had to say about the rules and approach towards countering terrorism, the paper ends with giving a few recommendations, in the light of its main argument about the importance of having a nuanced understanding of the process of radicalisation.
2010
What should an effective counter-terrorist strategy look like? Can any lessons be drawn from past European experiences? How does terrorism end? Having answers to these three questions would be of great help to both practitioners and scholars interested in the disbandment of home-grown terrorist groups. Preventing processes of radicalization and, if at all possible, enabling the reverse process of de-radicalization has become a priority objective for EU Member States.
Countering Radicalisation and Violent Extremism – a European Perspective
Radicalisation as a process closely linked with terrorism is often seen as a driving force for instigators and perpetrators of terrorist attacks and serious violent extremist crimes. Understanding and countering the process of radicalisation is therefore a prerequisite for effectively combating terrorism and violent extremism. Although in the context of radicalisation, the main focus is usually given to Islamic fundamentalism (so-called jihadism), this phenomenon does not affect only Muslims. In the first part, this paper analyses the conceptual framework used in the radicalisation discourse, provides an overview of theoretical models of radicalisation and analyses the role of internet in the process of radicalisation. The second part contains an overview of policy framework in the EU and describes different approaches taken in several European countries and the EU as such aimed at countering and preventing radicalisation.
EU policies for preventing violent extremism: a new paradigm for action?
Revista CIDOB d'Afers internacionals, 2021
This article presents a supranational perspective on the prevention of violent extremism (PVE) with the aim of ascertaining whether a new paradigm for action can be identified. To this end, it critically analyses EU policies, measures, and strategies that have been established in the context of the threats and challenges posed by radicalisation and violent extremism. It explores how the approach adopted by the EU, originating in its 2005 antiterrorist strategy, has entailed the need to create tools, strategies, programmes, and networks to inspire and encourage member states to produce policies and instruments in order to prevent and combat radicalisation which could lead to violent extremism. Finally, it formulates the hypothesis that adopting this "soft approach" will probably influence, in the long term, strategies and measures that go beyond the security framework.
We Saw it Coming: Jihadist Terrorism, Challenges for the European Union
Nothing about the recent Paris or Copenhagen terrorist attacks was totally unexpected. Indeed, they were the sort of thing that security apparatuses in Europe had been preparing to have to deal with. Although security responses to terrorism are traditionally considered a quintessential national sovereignty prerogative, in the past ten to fifteen years the recognition that highly asymmetric security threats respect no borders has heightened the EU’s role as a coordinator in this policy domain. Some claim that counter-terrorism has changed the role and functioning of the EU itself towards a more operational character in security matters. Both old and new security responses to terrorism have (re-)emerged on the agenda of the EU and its member states in the ‘post- Paris attacks’ phase.