HSPI hosts a discussion on:
“Countering Radicalization in Europe”

On August 5, 2008, the Homeland Security Policy Institute hosted a special forum on combating radicalization in Europe, featuring Dr. Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, King's College London.

Muslim communities within Europe are distinct from their American counterparts, and are also different from one another. Drawing upon the experiences of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—whose Muslim populations collectively comprise about two-thirds of the total in Europe—Peter Neumann outlined these differences as well as varying government approaches to combating radicalization. While American Muslims are culturally integrated and tend to be part of the middle-class, Muslims in Europe fare less well in socioeconomic terms. Within Europe moreover, Muslim immigrants hail from a range of backgrounds: in Germany, the predominant country of origin is Turkey; in France, it is the region of North Africa; and in Britain, South Asia. These differing points of origin carry political consequences. For example, Neumann explained that the debate about the place of sharia law within a given European context is influenced by how the cited countries and regions of origin deal with the matter.

Young Muslims in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are often second- or third-generation immigrants. They may have weak ties to their ancestral homeland, yet be viewed as “outsiders” in their country of residence. This may give rise to questions of identity—and leave youth vulnerable to radicalization. Those who do become radicalized may ultimately find their path influenced by the language(s) that they speak. Urdu or Turkic speakers living in Germany or the UK may seek out training camps in Pakistan for example, while Arabic speakers from France may head to Iraq.

The differences in government responses to radicalization across Europe are stark. Germany practices a top-down approach. Counter-radicalization is largely the preserve of the central government, with the local level focusing primarily on community policing measures. One notable forum at the national level is the Berlin Conference, which is intended to spur dialogue between and among the central government and representatives from Muslim communities. By comparison, in France, the government is reluctant to interact with faith communities. Neumann stated that “there is almost a paranoid fear of the emergence of communities that stand...between the state and citizen, and that may threaten the unity of the State.” Nevertheless, as Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy created the Council of the Muslim Faith as a forum for discussion. In practice however, meaningful government policy has not been conducted through this body.

By way of further comparison, the United Kingdom has adopted a bottom-up approach. The government funds local projects, proposed by Muslim communities, to counter extremism. These initiatives range from sports clubs to multimedia educational projects. The government also works with what Neumann termed “soft Islamist” groups; the aim here is to engage with those who have “already started down the path of radicalization,” so as to prevent future terrorist acts. At the same time, British policies are getting tougher—it is now a criminal offense to justify or glorify terrorism.

Ultimately, “the solutions for radicalization must come from within the communities themselves, ” as HSPI Director Frank Cilluffo noted with reference to Europe and beyond. Trust must be built between Muslim communities and government authorities—as Neumann suggested, “police representatives [should become] more in touch with and a part of these communities.” He also underscored that while “homegrown” terrorist groups within Europe present a threat, the magnitude of the threat is increased when such groups are tapped into a network with “skills, expertise, and strategic direction.” In concluding, he observed that “it is not possible to say ‘this [or that] is the best approach’,” because policymakers across Europe must address counter-radicalization issues in the particular context of their own country’s historical experience.

The Homeland Security Policy Institute seeks to provide innovative leaders in the fields of national and homeland security with a forum to discuss current and future counterterrorism and counterinsurgency efforts on a regional or country-specific basis.