Assessing the Effectiveness of the Prevent Pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy

• Název práce v češtině: Hodnocení efektivity protiteroristické politiky EU - pilíř prevence
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Prevent Pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy
• Klíčová slova: Európska únia, terorizmus , boj proti terorizmu, boj proti radikalizácii, prevencia, efektivita
• Klíčová slova anglicky: European Union, terrorism, counter-terrorism, counter-radicalization prevention, effectiveness
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2011/2012
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra mezinárodních vztahů (23-KMV)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. Mgr. Oldřich Bureš, Ph.D., M.A.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 28.05.2012
• Datum zadání: 28.05.2012
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 23.06.2014 00:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: IPS FSV UK, U kříže 8/661 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 16.05.2014
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 23.06.2014
• Oponenti: PhDr. JUDr. Tomáš Karásek, Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

Master’s Thesis Proposal – Assessing the effectiveness of the ‘prevent‘ pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy

Introduction
Following the events of 9/11, counter-terrorism has become the top security priority not only in the United States, but also in the European Union. In the immediate aftermath of these events, the members of the EU called an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in which they stated that ‘terrorism is a real challenge to the world and Europe. The European Council has decided that the fight against terrorism will, more than ever, be a priority objective of the European Union‘ (European Council 2001). However, the US ‘war on terror‘ and mainly the US invasion in Iraq resulted in intra-European divisions, hence making the common European approach to counter-terrorism more unlikely. Individual member states retained the main responsibility for policies in the realm of counter-terrorism. The role of the EU was rather weak, and no substantial new policy-making activity was established. The situation changed after two terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005, in which the involved perpetrators were born and raised in Europe and the EU has become concerned with the new phenomenon of ‘home-grown‘ terrorism. The European states recognized the need for new approach and political direction. The European Council reinforced the existing commitments for counter-terrorism cooperation and set out the new objective - ‘addressing the factors which contribute to support for, and recruitment into terrorism‘(EC 2004). The Hague Programme identified ten specific priority areas for 2005-2010, with anti-terrorist measures being one of them. It called for comprehensive response to terrorism and emphasized the need for terrorism prevention and information exchange. Radicalization as such became a key part in the European Union Counter-terrorism Strategy with the subtitle ‘Prevent, Protect, Pursue, Respond‘ launched in November 2005.

Choice of topic
This four-pillar structure of 2005 EU Counter-terrorism Strategy represents four areas in which various measures are taken. The ‘prevent‘ part of this Strategy aims to combat violent radicalization and recruitment of terrorists, identify the underlying causes leading to them and cooperate national security policies in e.g. intelligence sharing in belief, that the possibility of attack or the internal terrorist threat will decrease rapidly. Although these actions give the impression of successful terrorism prevention strategy, their functioning in practice might be questionable.
Firstly, EU Strategy focuses on combating recruitment and radicalization by Islamists and specifically mentions Al-Qaeda and those inspired by them. Measures and objectives within the ‘prevent‘ pillar could lead to stigmatizing Muslim communities in Europe and thus impede the whole process. Moreover, combating radicalization is a practice known from some Arabic and Asian countries, where it has met with various levels of success. These efforts are in most cases aimed at Muslims by Muslims, which could lead to higher level of understanding or even legitimacy. Therefore, the EU position when dealing with its Muslim communities could be problematic to some extent.
Secondly, there have been numerous attempts to research and identify underlying causes. However, consensus on what constitutes these root causes is still lacking, thus creating some kind of vacuum, resulting in practically none or minimal knowledge about where (in which areas) to take action.
Last but not least, at the institutional level, inappropriate executing of policies and processing their outcomes might result in decrease in effectiveness or perception of no value-added in area of terrorism prevention.
As a result, there is a very ambitious prevent strategy with possible prospects for success on the one hand, but on the other hand there are numerous obstacles of different sort for achieving given goals. In my Master’s thesis I will research the effectiveness of this ‘prevent‘ pillar in order to eventually assess its ‘usefulness‘ and its chances of success in the area of terrorism prevention. I will apply the framework focused on what can actually be done at the EU level. Aim of my thesis is thus thoroughly examine and objectively assess the effectiveness of this pillar, while taking into account major aspects of a policy area not exclusively in competence of the EU.

Research question
The research question is: Is the ‘prevent‘ pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy effective in its own terms?
This question might sound trivial, but this research can provide valuable analysis of EU terrorism prevention policy by highlighting the discrepancies, what can eventually lead to reevaluation of individual objectives or even reforming certain policies. The concept of effectiveness is an objective concept, designed to evaluate the common European approach to terrorism prevention in its own terms, that means under the conditions available to a policy area regulated mostly by national member states.

Concepts
There are several ways for measuring effectiveness. For example, in policy cycle analysis, Easton distinguishes between output, outcome and impact effectiveness. As Brzoska summarizes it, output refers to the broader, particularly legal, framework of shaping interventions in a policy field. Outcome addresses the question whether this framework is implemented in the way mandated. Outcome thus largely is under the control of those policy makers who want to shape a policy field. Impact, to the contrary, also depends on the behavior of those addressed by policies, including their adaption and evasion strategies and tactics (Brzoska 2011). However, this framework does not allow me to asses this particular policy area, which is experiencing uncertainty issues throughout all three levels. Therefore, for my purposes I designed different framework that can be useful for assessing effectiveness in given terms.
In my thesis, I define effectiveness in pursuance of three criteria. The EU Counter-terrorism Strategy, terrorism prevention respectively, should be a common approach addressing these issues at the European level by means of previously delegated authority by the Member states to this level. The objectives formulated or going beyond competences of the EU should be therefore ineffective in terms of common European terrorism prevention policy. The same counts for relevance of these objectives to fight against terrorism, or radicalization and recruitment. Having priorities that are not issue-relevant could bias the views on effectiveness of ‘prevent‘ pillar. The final aspect of effectiveness as I conceive it is the degree of overlap between common European measures resulting from the terrorism prevention policy and the actual steps taken by the Member states. Effectiveness of this pillar can be demonstrated also by its actual impact on national policies, its practical usage and actual execution. I therefore argue that this three-fold framework will provide useful assessment of the ‘prevent‘ pillar effectiveness, considering only objective and ‘prevent‘-related aspects of it.

Methodology
In order to analyze the effectiveness of ‘prevent‘ pillar I will use a single-case study. Each priority/objective will be exposed to 3 criteria and evaluated on the scale low-medium-high. Afterwards, the table of research results will be created and that will provide me with basis for assessing the effectiveness of this pillar.

Here I outline the objects of analysis, i.e. 7 key priorities for ‘Prevent’:
• Develop common approaches to spot and tackle problem behaviour, in particular the
misuse of the internet;
• Address incitement and recruitment in particular in key environments, for example
prisons, places of religious training or worship, notably by implementing legislation
making these behaviours offences;
• Develop a media and communication strategy to explain better EU policies;
• Promote good governance, democracy, education and economic prosperity through
Community and Member State assistance programmes;
• Develop inter-cultural dialogue within and outside the Union;
• Develop a non-emotive lexicon for discussing the issues;
• Continue research, share analysis and experiences in order to further our understanding
of the issues and develop policy responses.

As mentioned above, the research framework consists of three criteria: relevance, EU level, and overlap. Here I elaborate on each of them:

Does the objective contribute to terrorism prevention? – Relevance
This criterion will help to examine whether each objective really contributes to terrorism prevention or if it contributes in larger extent to other policy area (e.g. immigration, spreading democratic values, integration of minorities, social and economic welfare, etc.). Although I am aware that issues named in brackets could be considered relevant in regard to decreasing the threat, they are or should be dealt with within other EU policy areas. In case it will be proved that certain priority shows low degree of relevance to terrorism prevention, I would be inclined to argue that financial and personal resources of the EU are being ‘wasted‘ instead of rather allocating them into more relevant and important priority areas.

Is the objective being dealt with by common European approach? – EU level
Is the current EU level sufficient for accomplishing the objective or is there a need for further delegation of authority to the EU level by Member states? Does the EU have enough competences to adhere to what it ‘has written‘?

Are the actual steps taken by the Member states in compliance with the objective as set by the EU? - Overlap
Of concern will be the actual steps of national governments that are the outcomes of ‘prevent‘ pillar’s policies. Degree of overlap will asses whether the Member states are pursuing their own policies in this area or if they act in accordance with the common European approach, thus implementing and processing its outcomes.

Preliminary Outline

1) Introduction
2) Terrorism prevention in the EU
3) Key priorities of ‘prevent‘ pillar
4) Explaining research framework – the concept of effectiveness
5) Applying the research framework to individual objectives (Obj. 1-7 vs. 3 criteria of effectiveness)
6) Evaluation of results
7) Conclusion

Seznam odborné literatury

Sources

Primary sources:

The European Union Counter-terrorism Strategy, 30 November 2005
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st14/st14469-re04.en05.pdf

Commission, of the European Communities (2004): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attack, COM(2004) 698 final

Commission, of the European Communities (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament concerning terrorist recruitment, addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation, COM(2005) 313 final

Commission, of the European Communities (2006): Commission Decision of 19 April 2006 setting up a group of experts to provide policy advice to the Commission on fighting violent radicalisation (2006/299/EC) Official Journal, L:111

Council, of the European Union (2004a): EU compendium of threat assessments in the fight against terrorism - “Underlying factors in Recruitment to Terrorism”, 5670/04

Council, of the European Union (2009b): Revised EU Radicalisation and Recruitment Action Plan, 15374/09

Council, of the European Union (2010b): Council conclusions on the role of the police and civil society in combating violent radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists, 16178/10

Council, of the European Union (2005): The Hague Programme. Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C:53

European Council (2010):The Stockholm Programme - an open and security Europe serving and protecting citizens, Official Journal of the European Union, C:115

Websites:
Europol official website
https://www.europol.europa.eu/
https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/press/eu-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-te-sat-2011-449
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/terrorism/terrorism_intro_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/terrorism/terrorism_intro_en.htm
(adopted legislation, international conventions, reports, communications)
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/terrorism/terrorism_radicalisation_en.htm (countering radicalisation and recruitment)
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/terrorism/terrorism_radicalisation_en.htm
(communications and studies)
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/news_intro_en.htm (newsroom)
http://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.do (press releases)
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm (Eurobarometer)
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/jl0041_en.htm (EU counter-terrorism policy)
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/l14501_en.htm (addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0386:EN:NOT
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/terrorism/terrorism_intro_en.htm

Studies, reports:

Congressional Research Service‘s Report for Congress: Muslims in Europe: Promoting
Integration and Countering Extremism. September 7, 2011.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf

Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation (2008): Radicalisation Processes Leading to Acts of
Terrorism. A concise Report prepared by the European Commission's Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation
http://www.rikcoolsaet.be/files/art_ip_wz/Expert%20Group%20Report%20Violent%20Radicalisation%20FINAL.pdf

Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2010): The role of civil society in counter-radicalisation and the deradicalisation. A working paper on the European Policy Planners' network on countering radicalisation and polarisation http://wwwstrategicdialogueorg/PPN%20Paper%20%20Community%20Engagement_FORWEBSITE.pdf

The Change Institute: Studies into violent radicalisation; Lot 2: The beliefs ideologies and narratives. February 2008.
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/terrorism/docs/ec_radicalisation_study_on_ideology_and_narrative_en.pdf

TTSRL Consortium (2008): The EU Counterradicalization Strategy Evaluating EU policies
concerning causes of radicalization. Transnational Terrorism, Security & the Rule of Law
Deliverable, 7

Secondary sources:

Expert articles, studies:

Bossong, Raphael (2008): The Action Plan on Combating Terrorism. A Flawed Instrument of EU Security Governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46:1.

Bossong, Raphael (2010): Assessing the EU’s Added Value in the Area of Terrorism Prevention and Violent Radicalisation. Economics of Security Working Paper 60
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP60_Bossong_Assessing_Added_Value.pdf

Brzoska, Michael (2011): The Role of Effectiveness and Efficiency in the European Union's
Counterterrorism Policy: The Case of Terrorist Financing. Economics of Security Working Paper 51
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP51_Brzoska_EU_counterterrorism.pdf

Coolsaet, Rik (2010): EU counterterrorism strategy: value added or chimera? International Affairs 86: 4
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00916.x/pdf

Dalgaard-Nielsen, Anja (2010): Violent Radicalization in Europe. What We Know and What We Do Not Know, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33:9.

Freytag, Andreas et al. (2010): The Origins of Terrorism: Cross-Country Estimates on Socio-Economic Determinants of Terrorism. Economics of Security Working Paper 27
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP27_Origins%20of%20Terrorism.pdf

Hegemann, Hendrik (2012): Between Great Transformation and Politics as Usual. Formal and Informal Security Governance in EU Counterterrorism Policy. Economics of Security Working Paper 61
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP61_Hegemann_Between_Great_Transformation.pdf

Murshed, Sayid Mansoob; Pavan, Sara (2009): Identity and Islamic Radicalization in Western Europe. Economics of Security Working Paper 14
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP14_Identity_Islamic_Radicalization.pdf

Van Um, Eric; Pisoiu, Daniela (2011): Effective counterterrorism: What have we learned so far? Economics of Security Working Paper 55
http://www.economics-of-security.eu/sites/default/files/WP55_VanUm_Effective%20counterterrorism.pdf

Monographies, chapters:

Coolsaet, Rik (2011): Counterterrorism and Counter-radicalisation in Europe: How much unity in diversity? in Jihadi terrorism and the radicalisation challenge in Europe.
Second edition, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dittrich, Mirjam (2007): Radicalisation and Recruitment, The EU response, in The European Union and Terrorism, David Spence (ed.), London: John Harper Publishing.

Pisoiu, Daniela (2012): Islamist radicalisation in Europe. An occupational change process. Abingdon: Routledge.

Předběžná náplň práce

Preliminary Outline

1) Introduction
2) Terrorism prevention in the EU
3) Key priorities of ‘prevent‘ pillar
4) Explaining research framework – the concept of effectiveness
5) Applying the research framework to individual objectives (Obj. 1-7 vs. 3 criteria of effectiveness)
6) Evaluation of results
7) Conclusion

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Master’s Thesis Proposal – Assessing the effectiveness of the ‘prevent‘ pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy

Introduction
Following the events of 9/11, counter-terrorism has become the top security priority not only in the United States, but also in the European Union. In the immediate aftermath of these events, the members of the EU called an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in which they stated that ‘terrorism is a real challenge to the world and Europe. The European Council has decided that the fight against terrorism will, more than ever, be a priority objective of the European Union‘ (European Council 2001). However, the US ‘war on terror‘ and mainly the US invasion in Iraq resulted in intra-European divisions, hence making the common European approach to counter-terrorism more unlikely. Individual member states retained the main responsibility for policies in the realm of counter-terrorism. The role of the EU was rather weak, and no substantial new policy-making activity was established. The situation changed after two terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005, in which the involved perpetrators were born and raised in Europe and the EU has become concerned with the new phenomenon of ‘home-grown‘ terrorism. The European states recognized the need for new approach and political direction. The European Council reinforced the existing commitments for counter-terrorism cooperation and set out the new objective - ‘addressing the factors which contribute to support for, and recruitment into terrorism‘(EC 2004). The Hague Programme identified ten specific priority areas for 2005-2010, with anti-terrorist measures being one of them. It called for comprehensive response to terrorism and emphasized the need for terrorism prevention and information exchange. Radicalization as such became a key part in the European Union Counter-terrorism Strategy with the subtitle ‘Prevent, Protect, Pursue, Respond‘ launched in November 2005.

Choice of topic
This four-pillar structure of 2005 EU Counter-terrorism Strategy represents four areas in which various measures are taken. The ‘prevent‘ part of this Strategy aims to combat violent radicalization and recruitment of terrorists, identify the underlying causes leading to them and cooperate national security policies in e.g. intelligence sharing in belief, that the possibility of attack or the internal terrorist threat will decrease rapidly. Although these actions give the impression of successful terrorism prevention strategy, their functioning in practice might be questionable.
Firstly, EU Strategy focuses on combating recruitment and radicalization by Islamists and specifically mentions Al-Qaeda and those inspired by them. Measures and objectives within the ‘prevent‘ pillar could lead to stigmatizing Muslim communities in Europe and thus impede the whole process. Moreover, combating radicalization is a practice known from some Arabic and Asian countries, where it has met with various levels of success. These efforts are in most cases aimed at Muslims by Muslims, which could lead to higher level of understanding or even legitimacy. Therefore, the EU position when dealing with its Muslim communities could be problematic to some extent.
Secondly, there have been numerous attempts to research and identify underlying causes. However, consensus on what constitutes these root causes is still lacking, thus creating some kind of vacuum, resulting in practically none or minimal knowledge about where (in which areas) to take action.
Last but not least, at the institutional level, inappropriate executing of policies and processing their outcomes might result in decrease in effectiveness or perception of no value-added in area of terrorism prevention.
As a result, there is a very ambitious prevent strategy with possible prospects for success on the one hand, but on the other hand there are numerous obstacles of different sort for achieving given goals. In my Master’s thesis I will research the effectiveness of this ‘prevent‘ pillar in order to eventually assess its ‘usefulness‘ and its chances of success in the area of terrorism prevention. I will apply the framework focused on what can actually be done at the EU level. Aim of my thesis is thus thoroughly examine and objectively assess the effectiveness of this pillar, while taking into account major aspects of a policy area not exclusively in competence of the EU.

Research question
The research question is: Is the ‘prevent‘ pillar of the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy effective in its own terms?
This question might sound trivial, but this research can provide valuable analysis of EU terrorism prevention policy by highlighting the discrepancies, what can eventually lead to reevaluation of individual objectives or even reforming certain policies. The concept of effectiveness is an objective concept, designed to evaluate the common European approach to terrorism prevention in its own terms, that means under the conditions available to a policy area regulated mostly by national member states.

Concepts
There are several ways for measuring effectiveness. For example, in policy cycle analysis, Easton distinguishes between output, outcome and impact effectiveness. As Brzoska summarizes it, output refers to the broader, particularly legal, framework of shaping interventions in a policy field. Outcome addresses the question whether this framework is implemented in the way mandated. Outcome thus largely is under the control of those policy makers who want to shape a policy field. Impact, to the contrary, also depends on the behavior of those addressed by policies, including their adaption and evasion strategies and tactics (Brzoska 2011). However, this framework does not allow me to asses this particular policy area, which is experiencing uncertainty issues throughout all three levels. Therefore, for my purposes I designed different framework that can be useful for assessing effectiveness in given terms.
In my thesis, I define effectiveness in pursuance of three criteria. The EU Counter-terrorism Strategy, terrorism prevention respectively, should be a common approach addressing these issues at the European level by means of previously delegated authority by the Member states to this level. The objectives formulated or going beyond competences of the EU should be therefore ineffective in terms of common European terrorism prevention policy. The same counts for relevance of these objectives to fight against terrorism, or radicalization and recruitment. Having priorities that are not issue-relevant could bias the views on effectiveness of ‘prevent‘ pillar. The final aspect of effectiveness as I conceive it is the degree of overlap between common European measures resulting from the terrorism prevention policy and the actual steps taken by the Member states. Effectiveness of this pillar can be demonstrated also by its actual impact on national policies, its practical usage and actual execution. I therefore argue that this three-fold framework will provide useful assessment of the ‘prevent‘ pillar effectiveness, considering only objective and ‘prevent‘-related aspects of it.

Methodology
In order to analyze the effectiveness of ‘prevent‘ pillar I will use a single-case study. Each priority/objective will be exposed to 3 criteria and evaluated on the scale low-medium-high. Afterwards, the table of research results will be created and that will provide me with basis for assessing the effectiveness of this pillar.

Here I outline the objects of analysis, i.e. 7 key priorities for ‘Prevent’:
• Develop common approaches to spot and tackle problem behaviour, in particular the
misuse of the internet;
• Address incitement and recruitment in particular in key environments, for example
prisons, places of religious training or worship, notably by implementing legislation
making these behaviours offences;
• Develop a media and communication strategy to explain better EU policies;
• Promote good governance, democracy, education and economic prosperity through
Community and Member State assistance programmes;
• Develop inter-cultural dialogue within and outside the Union;
• Develop a non-emotive lexicon for discussing the issues;
• Continue research, share analysis and experiences in order to further our understanding
of the issues and develop policy responses.

As mentioned above, the research framework consists of three criteria: relevance, EU level, and overlap. Here I elaborate on each of them:

Does the objective contribute to terrorism prevention? – Relevance
This criterion will help to examine whether each objective really contributes to terrorism prevention or if it contributes in larger extent to other policy area (e.g. immigration, spreading democratic values, integration of minorities, social and economic welfare, etc.). Although I am aware that issues named in brackets could be considered relevant in regard to decreasing the threat, they are or should be dealt with within other EU policy areas. In case it will be proved that certain priority shows low degree of relevance to terrorism prevention, I would be inclined to argue that financial and personal resources of the EU are being ‘wasted‘ instead of rather allocating them into more relevant and important priority areas.

Is the objective being dealt with by common European approach? – EU level
Is the current EU level sufficient for accomplishing the objective or is there a need for further delegation of authority to the EU level by Member states? Does the EU have enough competences to adhere to what it ‘has written‘?

Are the actual steps taken by the Member states in compliance with the objective as set by the EU? - Overlap
Of concern will be the actual steps of national governments that are the outcomes of ‘prevent‘ pillar’s policies. Degree of overlap will asses whether the Member states are pursuing their own policies in this area or if they act in accordance with the common European approach, thus implementing and processing its outcomes.

Preliminary Outline

1) Introduction
2) Terrorism prevention in the EU
3) Key priorities of ‘prevent‘ pillar
4) Explaining research framework – the concept of effectiveness
5) Applying the research framework to individual objectives (Obj. 1-7 vs. 3 criteria of effectiveness)
6) Evaluation of results
7) Conclusion