“The International Context of the
fight against Radicalization: EU innitiatives”
Address by
HE Secretary of State
on behalf o
f
the Portuguese Presidency
of the Council of the European Union
Conference on
“Countering Radicalization:
Perspectives and Strategies from
around the Globe”
The Hague, 22 to 22 October 2007
Dear
Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
First of all, allow me to thank Minister Ernst Hirsch
Ballin, the Netherlands National Coordinator against Terrorism, Mr. Tjibbe
Joustra, and our chairperson, H.E. Doctor Ruud Lubbers, for the kind invitation
extended to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union to address this
most distinguished audience on the subject of the Union’s initiatives regarding
the international context in the fight against Radicalization.
Besides trying to summarize the main
features of our european policy – and to a certain extent also Portuguese
policy - on the subject, I will consider and and discuss five ideas which hopefully may
help feed the debates over the coming
two days.
Naturally, the Prevention, Preparedness,
Pursuit and Response to terrorism constitute an important priority for the
portuguese Presidency. In that context, the combat against Radicalization is a
crucial part of our European agenda. I would like to congratulate the
organizers of this conference for the excellent choice of the approach to
countering radicalization and the cerfully planned structure of the debates to be.
The
European Strategy on Radicalization is designated as “on combating
Radicalization and Recruitment to Terrorism”. Before I further present the
Union’s policies and priorities in this area though, a basic question has to be
addressed: how should perceive the relationship between the prevention of
Radicalization and that of terrorism?
In my view,
preventing violent Radicalization should be a concern and an objective per se.
Radicalization should not be seen exclusively, or even mainly, in relation to
the role it plays in facilitating the recruitment of terrorists or in providing
terrorists with ideological and material support. Important as this
relationship certainly is, I believe that violent Radicalization poses, in
itself, a threat to democratic societies based on tolerance and the rule of
law.
Actually,
terrorism can often be understood as a process aimed at creating favourable
conditions for Radicalization at least as much as the opposite.
The first
key idea I submit to your debate is thus the following one: we should not prevent Radicalization
because of terrorism: all of the important policies involved in the fight
against Radicalization – education, integration, social solidarity and justice,
development assistance, the promotion of international peace, etc. –have a long history in our democracies inspired by a
positive vision of the world and by a set of shared values which have oriented
the development of our countries for generations. The fight against
Radicalization has positive goals and ambitions: it is a combat for the
expansion of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness
The European Union has made significant
accomplishments over the last few years in the fight against terrorism and it
can today avail itself – in the Strategy and in the Action Plan against terrorism
- of a clear framework to establish policies and instruments in the different
domains of the fight against terrorism.
We all know
that the EU Action Plan on the Fight Against terrorism was first established in
the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks against the United States Since. It gradually
incorporated the awareness of relationship between Radicalization and
Terrorism.
This
process intensified in 2004, after the Madrid attacks. In June 2004, the EU
Heads of State and of Government underlined “the importance of making use of
the wide-ranging instruments of the European Union in the context of addressing
all the factors which contribute to terrorism”. A few months later, in October
2004, the European Commission started working on its Communication on “addressing
the factors contributing to violent Radicalization” adopted one year later, in
October 2005.
The
adoption of the “European Union Strategy for combating Radicalization and
Recruitment to Terrorism” and its implementing Action Plan in November 2005 built
therefore both upon the political signal given by the European Council and on
one and a half year’s work by European Institutions.
Three other
elements played a major role in the development of the European Strategy on
Radicalization:
The first
was the broad awareness and mobilization on the issue of Radicalization and, in
particular, the intensive work accomplished in the field by academics and
researchers from around the globe. I recall the International Summit on
Democracy, Security and Terrorism which gathered in Madrid one year after the
terrorist attacks. Many of the concepts which were to be incorporated in the EU
Strategy were discussed in Madrid on the basis of documents produced by scores
of the world top class academics. As once more we gather here today with some
of the best academic minds of the moment, I think it is important to tell you
that “believe it or not, we do listen to what you think and say…”;
The second
element is the cross-fertilization with policy development elsewhere: at national
level – in our own member states and in third countries -
and globally. The EU Strategy may have been adopted a few months before the
memorable address by Secretary General Annan in May 2006 and his
recommendations for a Global Counter-Terrorist Strategy whose first component
was “dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it”. However,
EU and UN policies in this area developed in convergent interaction, are
closely intertwined and, are in my view, mutually supportive;
Thirdly, I
think that the shock of the July 2005 London terrorist attacks did play a major
role, EU wide, as it brought forth to our citizens the notion that young people
raised and even born in our own countries could embark in a inwardly spiralling
journey leading to the darkest pit of self and mutual destruction. This
awareness took different paths in different EU countries: here, in the
Netherlands, the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004, was
a key moment in the social understanding that tolerance does
not automatically engender tolerance.
The second
key idea I would like to offer for debate, based on the EU experience is that
developing effective policies in the fight against Radicalization - besides requiring drawing on the insight of experts and
the intense work of administrations in open processes involving international
cross-fertilisation- is however a political process which relates to the very
essence of democratic societies and requires therefore political guidance at
the highest level and the active understanding and involvement of citizens.
In this
sense I would like to qualify my first key idea in the sense that the if
prevention of Radicalization has much broader and deeper reasons than the
prevention of terrorism, terrorism may help our societies to understand it “ad
absurdum”.
I would not like to tire you with useless details on our Strategy, or thus
abuse the time imparted for this address.
So let me
just stress that the EU Strategy while admitting that Radicalization “is not
confined to one belief system or political persuasion” focuses mainly on the
mesh of accusations, diatribes and invectives which invoke the authority of
Islam and the sense of equity of the target audience to attack fundamental
rights - notably those to life, integrity of person,
dignity and freedom of expression.
The
Strategy affirms “the Union’s rejection of any justification for terrorism,
religious or otherwise” and welcomes the “strong stance that the people of
Europe and beyond, including Muslims, have taken to reject terrorism”. It
enunciates the resolve of the Union to:
disrupt
the activities of the networks and individuals who draw people into terrorism;
ensure
that voices of mainstream opinion prevail over those of extremism;
promote
yet more vigorously security, justice, democracy and opportunity for all.
The EU
Strategy focuses on specific challenges dealing for instance with
Radicalization processes taking place through the internet, in prisons and
places of education.
It identifies
as the core of the issue “propaganda which distorts conflicts around the world
as a supposed proof of a clash between the West and Islam and which claims to
give individuals both an explanation for grievances and an outlet for their
anger” identifying the need to work simultaneously “to change the perceptions
of European and Western policies, particularly among Muslim Communities, and to
correct unfair or inaccurate perceptions of Islam and Muslims”.
The EU
strategy correctly identifies a number of conditions which contribute to
creating an environment in which people can more easily become radicalized. This includes “poor
or autocratic governance; states moving from autocratic control
via inadequate reform to partial democracy; rapid but unmanaged modernization;
and lack of political and economic prospects, unresolved international and
domestic strife; and inadequate and inappropriate education or cultural
opportunities for young people”. It identifies ways and means to address those
conditions within the EU and with regard to third countries.
The EU
strategy is in my view balanced, lucid and honest. It is the opposite of the
propaganda it aims to fight and therefore very difficult to pursue, since
countering simple lies with complex truths is never easy.
A few
examples may illustrate this conclusion:
Our will to
dialogue with Islam on these matters can be easily -
and falsely - portrayed as meaning that Islam is perceived as extraneous to
Europe, implying that millions of Muslim citizens are somehow not “fully”
Europeans;
The
enunciation we make of the factors which facilitate Radicalization can be
falsely presented as some sort of recognition of a justification for violent
propaganda or even violence itself;
Our resolve
to protect our citizens, notably the young, from those who want to destroy them
as persons and as citizens and the need to “put in place the right legal
framework to prevent individuals from inciting and legitimizing violence” can
be misrepresented as the prelude of autocratic “Big Brother” states meddling in
everything from school, to prayer, to family life;
Conversely,
our concern with correcting unfair or inaccurate perceptions of Islam and
Muslims and with using language which is non-emotional and non offensive to
Muslims can be described by some as “white washing”, politically correct, or
whimsical.
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
We must
resist the temptation to fight like with like. I believe that, in spite of
temptation, we should not try to fight propaganda with counter-propaganda.
Propaganda thrives on feeling and works best with the most vulnerable:
children,
ever younger ones;
adolescents
in their quest for identity and in their quest for a worthy quest;
young
adults weakened by lack of cultural and family references and by poor
individual prospects;
Those
living in depression or under oppression;
Of course
we should waste no time and be modern. YouTube videos: why not?! Social and
electronic networks addressing radicalization: what are we waiting for?! But
never forget that our policies address reason and work
best with balanced, educated, integrated, active members of our societies:
these are the vast majority in all our countries and in them resides
our strength.
Better
education, better integration, better prospects: yes, yes and yes. Otherwise,
our policies and words need to remain firmly balanced, lucid and honest as that
is the only way we will retain the trust and respect of our societies and
communities.
At this point, and talking about balanced, lucid and
honest policies allow me to say a few words to praise the way in which the
Netherlands has been reflecting on its own challenges regarding Radicalization
and “Polarization”, this one an innovative and operative concept to address
group dynamics rather than individual ones.
The whole
of Europe has been following with great interest the tremendous effort the
Netherlands has put over the last two years or so in the development of its
national Plan on combating Radicalization and polarization.
Only the
future will tell if you have found all the right answers but in my view a few
things are certain:
-I believe
from what I have read that you asked the right questions;
-that you
did so in an honest, lucid and balanced way;
- that you did it the hard way – involving many ministries and
authorities in the time honoured “poldering”[1]
tradition of the Dutch – and;
- that you identified very interesting ideas, notably the
involvement of local authorities in the fight against Radicalization.
As a
democrat, I do believe that not all intolerant opinions should be tolerated by
the law and that not all those which can be so should be politically tolerated.
Stating that, loud and clear, takes political courage. So, without taking
position on matters on Dutch internal policy, allow me nevertheless to express
my genuine admeration for the way in which Dutch democracy is dealing with
these extremely delicate matters.
The extent
of the effort undertaken by the Dutch authorities in developing their Plan
brings me to a fourth idea: that if the identification of the existence of
Radicalization and the related problems often comes first to Government
attention by means of police and security services and the formulation of
policies to counter it often initiated by Ministries of Justice and Home
Affairs, there is very little that these can do on their own to counter
Radicalization, whether at national or European level. Finding ways and means
to mobilise at national level inter alia the Ministries of Social Affairs,
Education, Employment, Foreign Affairs and Development and at European level
the corresponding Council formation is in my view a key challenge. Until we do
so, chances are that our policies look very good but
do very little.
Allow me at this point to show a bit of a national pride
which is perhaps not entirely fitting in my capacity today as representative of
the Presidency of the EU Council.
It just so
happens that, last week, was published a study on migrant integration policies
conducted in twenty eight developed countries including the Netherlands,
Portugal, twenty three other EU Member States as well as Switzerland, Norway
and Canada. This study looked into legislation and policy measures across six
different areas: “access to the labour market”; “family regrouping”, “long term
residence”, “political participation”, “acquisition of nationality” and “non
discrimination”. Belgium and The Netherlands came third and forth with
practically identical results.
I am most
proud to say that Portugal came only second to Sweden at the top of the list.
Why do I bring the matter up, besides my Government’s understandable pride in
the achievement? I do so for three reasons:
Firstly
because while Portugal doesn’t have a policy specifically aimed at preventing
and responding against Radicalization – which is as such insignificant - my country does have, as many others do, policies which
are there because they correspond to values and needs and effectively address
many of the same concerns;
Secondly,
to note that you don’t have to be very rich in order to be fair: the Portuguese
know as emigrants what migration can be at its worst and we want to treat our
immigrants with the same respect which we wish be granted to our citizens; “do
on to others”.
Finally,
because this fact may help to explain why the Portuguese Presidency of the EU
decided to invest considerably in taking forward EU work in the area of
prevention and response against Radicalization. Why?
Firstly,
because – as I previously said - I believe that you
don’t have to have a Radicalization problem for the measures required to fight
Radicalization to make sense in their own terms: for ourselves, for other
countries like ourselves or for Europe as a whole. We do it because it’s right;
because it is in accordance with our principles and our values;
Secondly,
because we are all in this together. If Radicalization is a problem with which
the Netherlands, the UK or other EU Member State are confronted, and the EU can
help to address it; then the EU should help. That is the meaning of Solidarity.
Furthermore, it is a problem with which our non EU neighbours or other partners
are confronted and the EU can help, we believe that it should help too. Not
only because in today’s world Radicalization is “contagious” across continents,
but because the policies which make sense to fight Radicalization in these
countries would make sense anyway with a view to supporting sustainable human
development;
Thirdly,
because now is the time to act. My Government believes that it would be a
mistake to be complacent – independently of the fact that radicalization is
currently practically unknown in Portugal and of our good performance e.g. in
integration of migrants. To the contrary, Radicalization can spread from abroad
and it can develop insidiously in our midst. A major recent judicial action in
Portugal against dozens of “skinheads” testifies to our vigilance to fight
violent intolerance and prejudice in whatever guise with the full might of the
law.
With your indulgence I would like to end referring that,
in the area of Radicalization and Recruitment to terrorism we have proposed to
focus as EU Presidency in an area where the Netherlands is today perceived as
one the Member States with a greater knowledge and expertise, that of
Radicalization of youth.
The
European Union Strategy for Combating Radicalization and Recruitment to
Terrorism clearly identifies the challenge of preventing and addressing the
radicalization of young people both in the EU and in third countries.
Furthermore, it identifies places of education as offering vulnerabilities to
those playing a role in radicalization while focusing on the importance of the
literature which propagates an extremist worldview which brings individuals to
consider and justify violence.
We
organized therefore in Brussels on 11 September 2007 an EU seminar on
“preventing and addressing radicalization of youth”. This aimed to: seek a
common understanding of the current trends in the radicalization of youth in
the EU and third Countries, as well as the contributing factors; to share information about responses developed at national
level, to determine good practice and work together to come up with new ideas
on how to address this challenge;
The Council
will now consider the establishment of recommendations addressing action both
at Member State and EU level and including elements to be implemented as
appropriate in different pillars and frameworks. These could include both
specific initiatives as well as concerns to be streamlined in the context of
existing policies, also in bilateral relations with third countries notably
trough appropriate use of political dialogue and assistance programs.
Why have
we, Portugal, during our EU Presidency focussed on the Radicalization of youth?
Quite simply because we think that if, in many regards, what we do today will
affect the conditions we will have to contend with in ten or twenty years, in
no area is this more true than in this one. That is the last of the five ideas
I would like to leave you with: tomorrow’s potential alienated youth and even
terrorists are today just children: our children. It is our duty to protect
them and to offer them ways towards fulfilment, participation and citizenship.
Whether these children live and grow in Lisbon, Rotterdam, Leids, Marrakesh or
Jakarta – that certainly makes a difference as regards which government has the
primary responsibilities for addressing their needs. In a way though, it makes
little difference: they are our children – all of them – and we are responsible
– all of us.
Thank you
for your kind interest and attention.
[1] “Poldering” – processo tradicional destinado à geração de consenso na gestão dos diques (polders) – a expressão é hoje em dia utilizada por analogia nos Países Baixos para descrever processos políticos complexos de natureza estratégica envolvendo consultas alargadas.