In the last video, we discussed the assumption that terrorism cannot be defeated. This video focuses on the attempts to deal with terrorism, and many have said that this is best done or best dealt with, by way of a holistic or comprehensive approach. Let us compare that assumption with empirical evidence and expert and scholarly literature. Let me first explain what is meant with a holistic approach in counterterrorism, which is also often referred to as a comprehensive approach or a wide approach, or a grand strategy. The latter term has been defined by Martha Crenshaw, as a more inclusive concept that explains how a state's full range of resources can be adopted to achieve national security. Well, in general, descriptions of a holistic or comprehensive approach to terrorism or any other complex societal problem, often include the mentioning of a wide range of instruments or involving a wide range of actors, and with regard to terrorism, it often includes the words preventive and repressive measures or soft and hard measures. In addition, the term frequently refers to the need to deal with the complexity and the multi-dimensional nature of both terrorism and counterterrorism, and most descriptions of the approach, list a range of concrete policy areas from the procurement of intelligence to the prosecution of perpetrators of terrorist attacks. The question remains whether or not such a holistic or wide approach is the best way to deal with terrorism. There are quite a number of important politicians and well-known public figures, who have stressed the need for a holistic approach to deal with terrorism. One of them is the former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In remarks delivered to the United Nations Security Council debate on combating terrorism in Africa, he said that the success in the combat against groups, such as Boko Haram or al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Shabaab, would require greater and more holistic efforts, and he said, and he has a quote, 'Military advances important as they are, will not themselves bring an end to terrorism in Africa, this struggle must go forward on many fronts, including addressing the conditions that are conducive to the spread of terrorism.' The plea of Ban Ki-moon is very much in line with the counterterrorism approach of the United Nations as formulated in 2006. In September of that year, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations global counterterrorism strategy, this strategy was the first-ever comprehensive, collective, and internationally approved framework to tackle the problem of terrorism, and it consists of four pillars. The first pillar is addressing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. The second pillar is about preventing and combating terrorism. The third pillar stresses the need for building state capacity to do so and to strengthen the United Nations role in this regard. And finally, the fourth pillar is about ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law that are the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism. These four pillars are the strategic anchors of the United Nations counterterrorism efforts. According to the UN, they should also serve to encourage all the member states to take a holistic approach based on these principles when dealing with terrorism, and many member-states indeed, take a holistic approach in countering terrorism. Scholars have also emphasized the importance of a holistic approach, for instance, Bruce Hoffman, one of the leading scholars in the field of terrorism and counterterrorism studies, he said so in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives that took place two weeks after 9/11. He stated that 'only a comprehensive or holistic approach will work'. Many politicians, practitioners and scholars have mentioned the need for a holistic approach. But does it really work? Is it feasible? There is the risk that a holistic approach develops into a 'confetti approach', consisting of many different projects dealing with a wide range or a wide variety of issues, instead of a focus on the key issues. That would not only be a waste of scarce resources, but also would not devote enough attention to the most important issues. The holistic approach also runs the risk of pulling a lot of social policies into the security domain and leading to a focus on repressive and security-oriented measures. What if it does not work? Isn't a price in terms of resources and side effects, perhaps too high? How does the holistic or wider approach work in practice? One country that has adopted a wide approach is Indonesia. Its national CT strategy has been the subject of many studies. One of them by Noorhaidi Hasan, observes that Indonesia has developed a balanced model for responding to jihadist terrorism by carefully combining hard and soft measures. The main approach shifted from one based on maintaining security with an important role for the military, to one based on law enforcement, in which the police is the lead agency. As part of their holistic approach, the Indonesian authorities also welcomed the role of civil society. One of the goals is to strengthen people's awareness of and resilience against the threat posed by radicals and terrorists that seek to infect local populations with violent ideologies. According to Noorhaidi Hasan, the Indonesian example is not only very interesting, but also valuable to other countries. The country has been facing fewer attacks than it did in the early 2000s. But how do we know that this can be ascribed to a holistic approach? Also in my home country, the Netherlands, both authorities and many scholars seem to agree on the need for a holistic or comprehensive approach. The Netherlands National Counterterrorism Strategy 2016-2020 is clearly based on the assumption that terrorism can best be dealt with by way of a comprehensive approach. Many different agencies and organizations are involved in the counterterrorism policy. A National Coordinator for security and counterterrorism has a coordinating role and its CT strategy provides a framework to the various partners at the local level and the national level. The basic idea behind the so-called integral or wide approach, is that an effective approach to terrorism can only be really effective, if it not only looks at the acts and prevents the acts of violence, but also the factors and processes that preceded these acts. Thus, the strategy combines both preventive and repressive measures, as part of a holistic approach. It sounds good. But again, does it really work? Some experts and scholars are not so sure terrorism is best dealt with by way of a holistic approach. The following arguments have been put forward. The first problem of a comprehensive strategy is that it does not prioritize a finite amount of resources and attention, nor does it provide an assessment of what is most likely to be effective and whatnot. Second, it also tends to overlook the enormous pressure on governments and agencies to do something here and now, especially just after a terrorist attack has happened. Well, while a comprehensive approach is needed to prevent terrorism in the long run, traditional and ad-hoc security measures that detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist operations still remain a critical component in the fight against terrorism. Finally, and perhaps the most important criticism is that it's easier said than done. More often than not, holistic approaches leave very important questions unanswered. Like, who's responsible, who takes the lead, who has the financial and political means, or how to make all these various actors at the local, national and international level, cooperate. These challenges and obstacles makes sense. Who is right? Ban Ki-moon and others who support the idea of a comprehensive approach, or those that have a more skeptical take on this? How to measure the effectiveness of holistic approaches to counterterrorism, and how to compare them to approaches with a more focused approach? That brings us to one of the most striking and more serious flaws in both counterterrorism, and the study of counterterrorism. That is the lack of evaluation studies. Well, in 2006, three authors, Lum, Kennedy, and Sherley published an often quoted article on evaluation research. They found out that there's almost a complete absence of high quality scientific evaluation evidence on counterterrorism strategies. Academia has produced very little to evaluate strategies, measures, etc. This is an article from 2006, but the main conclusion still hold today. Unfortunately, this is also the case with regard to governmental studies and reports. Despite the fact that governments have spent millions and billions of euros, dollars, and what have you, on counterterrorism, few of them, the Netherlands is a positive exception, have evaluated their policies and approaches. The independent evaluation of the first Netherlands CT strategy by Utrecht University observed that the comprehensive approach works, when the threat is very visible, but that the plans unintentionally leave room for selective attention, leading to an emphasis on repressive and security oriented measures. In the absence of a clear threat, partners also drift away from each other. The evaluation report also states that effects of counterterrorism policies cannot be evaluated directly. The impact of measures are extremely difficult to determine, because policy effects can also be attributed to other circumstances and because multiple instruments are applied simultaneously. This makes it difficult for an effect, such as a person not deciding not to travel to fight with IS in Syria and Iraq, to be attributed to one specific measure, such as withdrawing a passport. The context of CT strategies is thus characterized by complexity. The developments are unpredictable. The factors involved are almost unlimited, and there are few scientifically supported standards, which can be used to assess the quality or effectiveness of a strategy. Where does that lead us when trying to answer the question whether or not terrorism can best be dealt with by way of a holistic or comprehensive approach? Many politicians and scholars believe there is a need for a wide or holistic approach to deal with terrorism. But we also saw that there are few evaluation studies. In fact, there's not much empirical evidence that clearly shows that such an approach is indeed the most effective approach. Still, most politicians, and most scholars seem to agree that terrorism requires a wide holistic or comprehensive approach, or grand strategy against that backdrop. I guess we should label the assumption as 'partly true'. But let me immediately add that more evaluation studies are needed. Next week we will reflect upon what we have learned so far and focus on the impact of terrorism, and the impact of counterterrorism, and how to limit this impact on societies and our daily lives.
