Bringing nuance to the counter-terrorism ‘carnival’
Professor by special appointment in Radicalisation Studies offers much-needed critical commentary
Society understandably is concerned about radicalism and potential attacks, but we must not overestimate the risks, says the new professor by special appointment in Radicalisation Studies Frank Bovenkerk. ‘My job is to offer independent, critical commentary.’
Society understandably is concerned about radicalism and potential attacks, but we must not overestimate the risks, says the new professor by special appointment in Radicalisation Studies Frank Bovenkerk. ‘My job is to offer independent, critical commentary.''The Netherlands is currently dominated by fear. We live in a risk society, and in this type of society subjective risks carry more weight than the actual risks,' says Bovenkerk. ‘The odds of being hurt in an accident at home are far greater for all of us than being victims of an extremist attack. Still, we are more fearful of the latter.'
Which on the one hand is understandable, according to Bovenkerk, professor by special appointment as from 1 January to the FORUM Frank Buijs chair in Radicalisation Studies. The idea that people wilfully want to harm others is bound to elicit fear and aversion. On the other hand, however, Bovenkerk is amazed at the ‘carnival' surrounding counter-terrorism measures. ‘During my meet and greet, I shook hands with countless numbers of police and security personnel. The General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (NTCb), the military security service, local police forces, the national Dutch police squad (KLPD), the Royal Military Police (Koninklijke Marechaussee), the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)...All these organisations undoubtedly carry out useful work, but there are certainly a lot of them.'
Downside to existing measures
Bovenkerk says his job is to offer ‘independent, critical commentary' in response to the various activities undertaken and the views presented on radicalisation and counter-terrorism. ‘There is certainly room for a little nuance in this debate.' For example, the professor by special appointment would like to investigate the downside to the existing measures against terrorism and radicalisation. He warns against the way in which entire segments of the population are being classified as possible suspects. ‘Putting every Moroccan, every Muslim on the suspect list makes people really angry. As a result, it achieves exactly what you originally had hoped to prevent: people turn their backs on society and immerse themselves in radical philosophies. Consequently, my biggest fear is that the government is overreacting.'‘Tough approach’ is ineffective
Bovenkerk points out that it is crucial to distinguish between potential terrorists who come here from abroad (‘they are difficult if not impossible to trace, at least not on the basis of outward features') and the so-called home-grown radicals. ‘People like Mohammed B., who grow up in the Netherlands and develop radical ideas over time. What we really want to know of course is why people radicalise, and how we should respond. The widely advocated "tough approach," which includes outlawing activities and prosecuting suspected criminals accordingly, is completely useless. These are people driven by their beliefs; you have to use a different approach here. Talk to them; apply the type of techniques used with people in cults and gang members. What prevented the Moluccan conflict from spiralling further out of control back in the day? The government sat down and talked to those guys. They were given a ticket to go and have a look at the country where they hoped to establish their "independent utopian state." The Moluccans gave up their struggle not long after that.'Bovenkerk believes that engaging in a dialogue with potential terrorists is one of the '40 ways to prevent or counter terrorism,' a survey that he hopes to publish within the foreseeable future. ‘Another possibility is to ask the media to tone it down or be more diplomatic in their reporting on specific segments of the population.'