Rami G. Khouri

The difference between the sensible and superficial approaches to tackling the scourge of terrorism and other forms of violent extremism by groups such as Daesh (ISIS) was clear last week, in efforts by the U.S. government and United Nations Secretary-General, Ban-Ki moon.

For all those puzzled people around the world who ask what we must do to defeat Daesh and others like it, I suggest taking half an hour to read and really ponder the proposals offered by Ban.

The main difference between the U.S. and U.N. approaches is that the U.N. correctly focuses on addressing the underlying drivers of violent extremism and terrorism. The U.S. government, in turn, downplays or ignores those critical underlying causes, to focus more on a combination of military action and preventing recruitment of extremists via social media, tackling symptoms rather than causes of violence.

The American approach has been used for nearly the past quarter century in various forms with only limited success, because terror organizations and actions continue to expand widely. The U.N. approach is more complex and challenging. It examines why violent extremism has spread so rapidly around the world, and attempts to craft an effective response that cuts out its core drivers at the roots, rather than just snipping off the buds that sprout at its extremities – and will keep sprouting over and over again if the basic life-giving forces are not removed.

Ban was unusually frank in his comments to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday when he said: “We all lose by responding to ruthless terror with mindless policy – policies that turn people against each another, alienate already marginalized groups, and play into the hands of the enemy. We need cool heads and common sense. We must never be ruled by fear – or provoked by those who strive to exploit it. Countering violent extremism should not be counterproductive.”

He did not specify whose “mindless” or “counterproductive policy” he meant. I would guess he was referring to the current failed policies of American, French, British and Arab governments that use hard police and military means and delusional social media “counternarrative” strategies to prevent the radicalization of youths and the spread of terrorism.

The much more demanding route to success acknowledges the use of legitimate military and police counter-terrorism means, but requires Western and Arab governments to revise many of their existing policies and practices, in order to cut off the flow of extremists at the roots. Simply stated, that is because the impact of current domestic and foreign policies by so many governments create the conditions that denigrate, humiliate and ultimately dehumanize millions of individuals, some of whom respond by turning to violent extremism, radical politics and terrorism.

Ban offered 70 specific recommendations for action at the national, regional and global levels, which he summarized under five broad headings. I hope that governments across world the take the time to study his plan, and consider how the most important policy they could adopt to reduce terrorism would be to put in practice key recommendations in the U.N. plan.

The five categories of action are: Prevention, which requires improving underlying conditions at the domestic level so that individuals do not reach a state of humiliation and desperation that drives them to terror. The secretary-general made an important point: “We know that extremism flourishes when human rights are violated, political space is shrunk, aspirations for inclusion are ignored, and too many people – especially young people – lack prospects and meaning in their lives.”

Principled leadership and effective institutions. “Poisonous ideologies do not emerge from thin air,” Ban remarked, adding that, “oppression, corruption and injustice are greenhouses for resentment.” The antidote is for leaders “to build inclusive institutions that are truly accountable to people.”

Preventing extremism by promoting human rights. “All too often,” he noted, capturing succinctly the norms of most Arab states and some foreign ones also, “Sweeping definitions of terrorism or violent extremism are often used to criminalize the legitimate actions of opposition groups, civil society organizations and human rights defenders. Governments should not use these types of sweeping definitions as a pretext to attack or silence one’s critics.”

An “all of government” approach that breaks down, as Ban put it, “the silos between the peace and security, sustainable development, human rights and humanitarian actors at the national, regional and global levels – including at the United Nations.”

U.N. engagement, which includes actions by the U.N. itself while also promoting coordination with and support for national plans of action that address the many inter-linked dimensions of the violent extremism and terrorism threats.