At last month’s 2014 G-20 Summit in Australia, all eyes were focused on the interactions between world leaders and President Putin over Moscow’s role in the ongoing Ukraine conflict. However, one of the most important moments came from British Prime Minister David Cameron during a rare address to the Australian parliament regarding the root cause of extremism. While both nations have sent their military to fight within the US-led coalition against the Islamic State group, they have also witnessed a staggering number of radicalized citizens leave to join the other side of the battle in both Iraq and Syria.
Flags flying high at Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre at the G20 Summit in Brisbane Australia, 14 Nov 2014. Photo by Flickr user GovernmentZA and used under a Creative Commons license.
In his speech, PM Cameron stated that the root cause of the emerging extremism was not merely economic inequality and/or social isolation, but rather the allowance of an extremist narrative. He briefly highlighted a Temporary Exclusion Order for all British citizens hoping to return after fighting alongside ISIS that would cancel their passports for up to two years and place the individuals on a “no fly list,” preventing their return to the United Kingdom. “We must ban extremist preachers from our country, we must root out extremism from our schools, universities and prisons. As we do so, we must work with the overwhelming majority of Muslims who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people,” Cameron proclaimed. The Counter Terrorism Bill is expected to pass into law following debate by parliament no later than the end of January.
It seems that, according to Cameron, the best answer to combating the spike in extremist behavior is through swift policy and action that would help “keep the British public safe” and it is not difficult to see why. According to Gilles de Kerchove, chief of the European Union’s counter-terrorism task force, over 3,000 European citizens have left to join the Islamic State group since the organization’s declaration of an Islamic Caliphate in June. This figure does not include those who have gone and returned. Of these 3,000+, British citizens account for at least 500 with roughly half thought to have returned. There is no question that action needs to be taken, however the question remains – is an extreme response the best answer to combating extremist behavior?
Consider Denmark’s response to returning Jihadi fighters. Since June, a reported 100 Danish citizens have left to join fighters in Syria – one of the highest rates in Europe. Since then, roughly 16 have returned to Denmark. For a small nation, the threat of homegrown terrorism is very real. However, instead of pursuing anti-terrorism measures like those of the United Kingdom, the country is trying a different approach.
The Danish police program, in partnership with religious and communal leaders, is implementing a de-radicalization program that focuses on reintegration rather than isolation. Returning fighters are eligible for help with employment, housing, education and psychological counseling. However, they are screened by police and their information is given to Danish intelligence officials for monitoring. Also, if they are found guilty of any crime, the individual is subject to legal action and even prison time. The program is strictly voluntary and does not try to change the fundamentalist beliefs of the returning fighters, as long as they do not advocate for violence. Ultimately, the end goal is reintegration and more importantly reducing the risk of re-engagement. Although the Danish program is receiving lots of attention, it is one of several similar de-radicalization programs in existence worldwide.
The verdict is still out for both the British and Danish approaches to dealing with the threat imposed by returning fighters from Iraq and Syria. However, it is clear that there cannot be a quick-fix policy solution to such complicated issues – especially those relating to national security. As Shami Chakrabarti, director of the U.K.-based civil liberties advocacy organization Liberty notes, “when will our governments learn that there are no short cuts to our security?”
About the author: Ghazal Rahmanpanah is an Iranian-American born in Tehran and raised in Maryland and Washington, DC who recently received her MA in International Policy Studies and MBA in International Economics at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. She is currently working as a media analyst for a global strategic communications firm. Ghazal is passionate about gender equality and the role it plays in disarmament initiatives.
This article touched on a subject I believe needs to be addressed and acted on. Too often the actions of some World leaders is to rush in when there is a crisis-such as ISIS-without clearly thinking of what would be a better approach.
The Danish alternative measures in my opinion is by far an improvement. Sadly much of today’s social unrest-IMHO-is largely due to the inequality of wages/salaries/job opportunities that is rampant. I think too Maslow’s theory of every humans needs might make a big difference if it was used as a social, equalizing parameter.
Thank you for an intersting subject. Victoria Stirling