Beyond the limits of counterterrorism: towards a peace and development agenda that can engage constructively with extremism

Saferworld’s Washington Associate David Alpher examines the growing debate in US policy circles focusing on the role of development in preventing violent extremism

In the thirteen years since 9/11 pushed terrorism into the policy spotlight, one thing has become increasingly clear: this is not a simple problem with a simple solution. As more analysts from different fields have engaged with the military and intelligence communities – and the militarized assertiveness of the ‘Global War on Terror’ has come under increasing scrutiny – a discussion has begun within the US policy and operational community about what ‘terrorism’ really is and what can be done about it. Until recently this type of discussion would have been impossible.

In an increasing number of US agencies and offices, the replacement of the term ‘counterterrorism’ with ‘countering violent extremism’ (CVE) has signalled fresh interest in and examination of underlying causes. The UN Counterterrorism Office recently held a debate examining the role of economic and social development work in helping prevent terrorism. The US-based Global Center on Cooperative Security also held an event examining terrorism from a non-militarized point of view. This broadening debate isn’t limited to the UN or the non-governmental worlds, but mirrors a process going on across the US policy landscape, where space has opened for a more nuanced discussion of counter-terrorism policy – in which it is possible to encourage less militarized approaches without being labelled ‘apologist’.

Given the ever-growing body of research showing that militarized policies to counter violent extremism tend not only to fail, but risk increasing radicalization at the same time, [1] this is a move in the right direction. However, for those within the debate, taking that as far as to say that ‘countering violent extremism is a purpose of development’ is not devoid of challenges and potential pitfalls. Doing so risks securitizing development at worst, and at best over-sells development as an effective substitute for other actions that may also be necessary to achieve lasting peace. Preventing violent extremism is likely to depend just as much on whether other simultaneous political, commercial and military engagement supports just and lasting peace as it does on development progress.

Another key risk is that development, and indeed peacebuilding (which can usefully overlap with, but is not necessarily identical to development) can be skewed if ‘countering violent extremism’ is too casually accepted as the overall objective. ‘Countering’ implies taking sides in a conflict, and ‘extremism’ labels certain motives and actors as illegitimate, incomprehensible and unlawful. By contrast, development, peacebuilding, and conflict-sensitive approaches to them, have traditionally worked on the basis of principles of impartiality and inclusivity and the universality of Human Rights. Bringing development to the fore in CVE efforts risks creating an expectation that aid agencies should be required to take sides in conflicts. Doing so can, however, alienate the wider population, strengthen the hands of those who are part of the problem rather than the solution, and potentially exclude certain actors exactly when it is most critical to engage with them.[2] Experiences in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere show that when delivered alongside militarized action, development results have been significantly eroded or reversed. One conclusion to draw from these experiences is that if development is directed by or towards the donor’s own security goals, rather than human security goals, it defeats its own purpose and tends to fail. 

While mindful of the above problems, given that peaceful societies are less likely to produce violent extremists, Saferworld embraces the idea that preventive, inclusive development work that engages with the drivers of conflict can have an important role in fostering lasting peace and, by extension, addressing the challenge posed by violent extremism. In order for this effort to succeed, however, the following points should be recognized:

1)      Development cannot address all drivers of conflict: Efforts to reduce violent extremism exclusively through development are unlikely to be effective. If extremist violence is also driven by outside political, commercial and military actions, lasting peace should also involve reconsideration of international approaches.

2)      Development can potentially address factors that motivate perpetrators of violent attacks: Individual agency and choice are critical factors that must be addressed in order to help keep the risk of violent extremism low. Individuals are not born violent extremists, but navigate a protracted and progressively narrowing series of choices that lead eventually to the point of violent attack. A number of factors in society – such as inequalities, lack of access to livelihoods, resources and services, lack of voice and representation, and exposure to insecurity and injustice – can shape these choices. Development offers vital opportunities to affect these factors.  

3)      Earlier engagement increases chances for success: The further ‘upstream’ from violence development (and peacebuilding) actors begin to engage, the wider the array of non-military options available to them. The closer the engagement is to the outbreak of violence, the more constrained actors are and – crucially – the more they risk the trap of securitizing development engagement.

4)      A people-focused approach is critical: Community engagement fosters the ability for individuals to choose, to act with agency: a profoundly important factor in creating the pre-conditions for peace. Community-based and people-centric approaches do not solve all problems – but experience shows that they represent a marked improvement over imposed solutions.

5)      Community driven security and justice processes offer a promising entry point: Community-based approaches to promoting security and justice are increasingly adopted by development and peacebuilding actors, but are still relatively underused.  They involve working directly with community security infrastructure (informal as well as formal) where it exists, asking communities to articulate for themselves the sources of and remedies for insecurity and injustice. By working through community perspectives, development and peacebuilding actors can play an important role improving linkages, trust and communication between communities and security and justice providers.

The right kind of development can help to foster peaceful societies, but securitizing development tends to erode its potential to do so precisely when it is most needed. Finding the right formula is proving challenging, but finding it should involve broadening the policy landscape to consider the growing and promising array of options. With violent extremism on the rise globally, pursuing options that can prevent its occurrence in less divisive, more developmental ways should be a priority for all governments.

“If development is directed by or towards the donor’s own security goals, rather than human security goals, it defeats its own purpose and tends to fail”

David Alpher