Security policies designed to reduce violent extremism are more likely to succeed when civil society groups are included in the process, says a May 2011 report from the Fourth Freedom Forum and the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.   By advancing development, human rights, and the rule of law, civil society groups address many of the root causes of violent armed conflict and set the stage for security and economic stability. Friend Not Foe calls on policymakers to enable rather than obstruct these groups from carrying out their vital missions by eliminating harmful counterterrorism measures (CTMs). The report was commissioned by Cordaid, the Dutch organziation with more than 90 years of experience and expertise in emergency aid and poverty eradication.

“Preventing terror attacks requires not only improved security but better efforts to address the underlying conditions that give rise to violent extremism. Resolving conflicts, ending foreign occupations, overcoming oppression, eradicating poverty, supporting sustainable development, empowering the marginalized, defending human rights, promoting good governance—all are vital to the struggle against terrorism, yet addressing these challenges is made more difficult by repressive counterterrorism policies,” says the report.

The report identifies several CTMs passed after 9/11 that have restricted and harmed civil society groups and the people that they serve. In the United States, charities face prosecution for providing “material support” to designated terrorist groups, “even if the group in question has not been officially designated as terrorist-related and the charity has no knowledge of or intent to support the alleged diversion.”  This happened in November 2008 when five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, a Dallas based charity, were found guilty of supporting Hamas even though the prosecution acknowledged that all funds went to zakat committees that are not on government watchlists. The possibility of severe criminal sanctions discourages other charities from operating in regions where their work is urgently needed but a designated group may operate.
This “chilling effect” is also felt by foundations, charities and donors in the restrictions on international financial transactions. The report finds that “development agencies are increasingly choosing to fund a limited number of centralized, large-scale organizations for fear of having their charitable donations stigmatized as financing terrorism.” Some donors, the report says, “have become risk averse and reluctant to fund initiatives that address controversial issues or challenge inequalities. The new rules have…left vulnerable populations underserved.”
According to the report, some CTMS “turn philanthropists into spies.” For instance, the Treasury Department’s Anti-Terrorist Financing Guidelines is an inappropriate one-size fits all approach to charity regulation that urges charities to collect personal information about their grantees and to report “suspicious information” to law enforcement. Leaders from the nonprofit sector have described the Guidelines as “useless and embarrassing, damaging trust…with the very groups that could make a difference” in addressing conditions that lead to terrorism.” Another program, the Partner Vetting System (PVS) would require allUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID) grant applicants to submit detailed personal information on “key individuals” within partner organizations and share information with intelligence agencies.  PVS has yet to fully implemented, but if invoked “PVS would impose new data collection obligations on charities and divert staff and funding from grant making. It would compromise the independence of nonprofits operating in conflict zones and further endanger aid workers and their local partners.”
To ensure accountability of resources and finances, civil society groups and development NGOs have adopted a number of voluntary codes for greater due diligence and transparency. The report mentions three of them:
Featuring four case studies (Colombia, Kenya, Indian and the Philippines) the report provides examples of legislative and regulatory measures “that curtail universally recognized human rights, including fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, and that restrict the funding and operational space of charities.” These constraints have been used to “crack down on NGOs and activists who criticize government policies” and deny access to vulnerable populations who may live or be trapped in places controlled by a designated terrorist organization.  An example of this occurred in Somalia where aid groups providing food to nearly one million at risk of starvation Somalis had to cease operations over concerns that some of the food might be diverted to the al-Shabab, which is on the list of terrorist organizations.
In countries like the Philippines and Uganda, civil society groups attempting to overcome conflict and political injustices face intense pressures from both armed rebels and the government. In Colombia, civil society groups promoting peace have been accused by the government of supporting terrorism and have been arrested, kidnapped or killed. At the same time, the major guerilla groups in the region, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), are known to target human rights defenders, community activists and religious leaders who criticize the widespread guerilla and paramilitary violence. According to the report, at least “sixty-nine cases of violations of human rights and humanitarian law against hundreds of pastors, church leaders, and other members of Protestant and Evangelical churches in Colombia” were documented in 2009.
In addition to the elimination or reforming of harmful CTMs, the report calls on civil society groups to engage more actively in the counterterrorism debate to strengthen their position in eliminating conditions conducive to violent extremism. This includes defending their operational space and funding, continuing to expose abuses, and developing grassroots support for more accountable governance that respects human rights and is rooted in the rule of law.
The Friend not Foe report is based on the findings of conferences, meetings and interviews meetings with over 400 participants from civil society around the world, including grassroots organizations, universities, think tanks, governments, the diplomatic corps and the security sector. This version of the report updates one from October 2009that focused primarily on the effects of counterterrorism measures on civil society in the Global South.