Canada’s anti-terrorism plan dangerously unproven
One of the less discussed outcomes of last week’s G7 summit in Japan was a new “action plan” to combat terrorism. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the other leaders agreed to a strategy that stressed the importance of countering violent extremism by promoting tolerance and “empowering alternative voices.”
The idea is that if young men and women from all over the world are joining Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) because they are drawn in by its appealing messages, the world’s most developed countries should fight fire with fire by developing more appealing messages.
But there are two problems: We don’t know if most recruits to terrorist groups are joining because of ideology. And we don’t know if counter-messaging will stop them.
Leaked personnel documents show that Daesh recruits come from all over the world, with a huge variety of education levels and occupations. But the documents don’t tell us what motivated them to join the would-be caliphate, and given the diversity of recruits, we can’t expect their motivations were the same. While researchers and journalists have spoken to individual recruits about their motivations and beliefs, the information that gives us is anecdotal at best.
On the other hand, there is considerable research contesting the idea that ideology is the most important factor in recruitment.
Social and psychological factors — including unemployment, boredom or following friends who have already joined the group — are seen as just as significant, if not more. Extremist views can be a red herring distracting from those other factors.
At the same time, not everybody who has radical beliefs will go on to join a terrorist group or carry out a terrorist attack. And targeting people based on their beliefs can do more harm than good by making them feel more alienated and less likely to co-operate with law enforcement.
In fact, trying to challenge a person’s deeply held beliefs can have the opposite effect. As former U.S. counterterrorism official Christina Nemr writes, humans are wired to reject information that threatens their beliefs. Countering the emotional appeal of Daesh propaganda with facts or ridicule — as a widely criticized U.S. social media campaign did when it got into Twitter spats with Daesh supporters — can instead drive potential recruits to double down on their beliefs. It can make them feel more misunderstood and isolated from their home country, which makes Daesh messages of belonging and vengeance even more powerful.
While it’s difficult to change someone’s beliefs, it can be more effective to focus on their behaviour. This approach considers which factors will encourage someone to commit violent actions or join a terrorist group, and which will divert them from that path.
Some countering violent extremism programs have had success offering employment assistance, strengthening family ties and providing psychological support. Others convince potential recruits that supporting Daesh is more trouble than it’s worth if they end up in jail or in a hellish conflict zone. The idea is that they can continue to believe in the Daesh cause, but if they have enough reasons not to act on that belief, that’s all it takes to prevent violence.
The G7 document doesn’t explain how alternative narratives should be identified and empowered, although it does encourage leaders to draw on existing programs, support local communities and share best practices. Indeed, for something called an “action plan,” it is remarkably short on concrete plans for action.
The best possible explanation for this is that the G7 leaders recognize the limitations of creating counternarrative policies that will work in all of their unique countries and want to leave as much room for interpretation as possible. The worst is that they are paying lip service to the concept because they know alternative narratives sound more appealing than the punitive counterterrorism actions some of them have taken so far.
It is smart to recognize the potential of programs that counter violent extremism, but it doesn’t make sense to make counternarrative strategy the focus of the G7’s plans when there is not enough reason to be sure it works.
It’s not pleasant to think people in our countries will continue to support Daesh’s abhorrent views and reject a culture of tolerance.
But if they can do so without contributing to violence at home or abroad, maybe that’s enough.