Friend not Foe: Civil Society and the Struggle against Violent Extremism

A report to Cordaid from the Fourth Freedom Forum and Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame October 27, 2008 By David Cortright, George A. Lopez, Alistair Millar, Linda M. Gerber-Stellingwerf Acknowledgments The Fourth Freedom Forum gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Cordaid for this project, and in particular the guidance of Lia van Broekhoven, Rick van der Woud, and other Cordaid colleagues. A major contribution to the research and focus of the report came from Jennifer Chapman. Larissa Fast, Eric Rosand, and John Paul Lederach also provided helpful guidance and feedback on the content of the report. The authors benefited from the editing skills of Celeste Kennel-Shank, and the research assistance of Peter Quaranto and Landon Yoder. Joshua Weaver deserves great credit for his meticulous fact and citation checking. Jennifer Glick of the Fourth Freedom Forum provided the design and layout of the final document. The authors of this report are indebted to the hardworking individuals who attended the 2008 workshops sponsored by Cordaid and its partners in Maastricht, the Netherlands; Davao City, the Philippines; and Kampala, Uganda. The participants in these meetings shared stories and experiences that provide the essential core of knowledge upon which this report is based, although the authors alone take responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation. Access in PDF format at http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/08_10_Friend_Not_Foe.pdf

Executive Summary

Repressive counterterrorism measures (CTMs) have led to an erosion of civil liberties and human rights in many countries. The repercussions have been felt keenly by civil society groups, especially in the global South. Overly restrictive security policies have contributed to a climate of suspicion toward nongovernmental groups, particularly those that challenge social exclusion and unequal power relations. Many of the organizations that work against extremism by promoting human rights and development are themselves being labeled extremist and are facing constraints on their ability to operate.

Counterterrorism measures include a wide range of policies with differing impacts, which can be loosely characterized as the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the bad and ugly categories are CTMs that overemphasize security and distort development priorities, and that lead to extrajudicial killings, greater state repression, and increased human rights abuse. Repressive counterterrorism measures constrain the operational capacity of civil society actors and impede the work of groups promoting rights-based development. On the positive side are cooperative nonmilitary measures that enhance the capacity of governments to thwart terrorist attacks. Also in the good category are policies that encourage support for sustainable development and the defense of human rights, as recommended in the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006. The evaluation of particular policies should be based on the degree to which they contribute to genuine security and democratic governance, while also upholding the rule of law and protecting the work of those striving to defend human rights, promote development, and resolve conflict.

The recent trend toward the use of development funding for security-related programs has stirred controversy among development agencies and civil society actors. In the United States a growing percentage of development funding is being channeled through the Pentagon or integrated with military operations. Development advocates recognize the connections that exist between development and security, but they oppose the diversion of development funding to serve the security interests of governments in the global North. The integrity and autonomy of development and human rights activities must be respected as ends in themselves, not as means to other purposes.

International policies to prevent the financing of terrorism have adversely affected nonprofit charities and have created a chilling effect in the donor community. Transnational Islamic NGOs have experienced particular difficulties in fulfilling the almsgiving obligation of the zakaat. In several countries, governments have adopted legislation and regulations curbing remittances and imposing conditions on foreign funding. Such restrictions have made it more difficult to finance independent humanitarian assistance, development, and conflict mediation activities.

In response to the repressive pressures and restrictions that have been imposed on civil society groups and their supporters,NGOs have established a set of core principles, based on international legal conventions, for protecting the operational and political space of civil society groups. These are:

States have a duty under international law to assure all citizens the full range of human and civil rights, including freedoms of association and expression. Through their efforts for development and human rights, civil society groups are working to dry up the wells of extremism from which violence springs. Civil society organizations address political grievances, socio-economic injustices, and power imbalances that are among the roots causes of armed confl ict. This work is not labeled counterterrorism, nor should it be, but it is exactly what is needed to counter violent extremism. International policymakers must recognize and protect this vital civil society mission and take action to eliminate counterproductive CTMs. In the global struggle against terrorism civil society groups should be welcomed as friends, not hounded as foes.