Countering Violent Extremism

Countering Violent Extremism Overview

Date: 
January 26, 2012

Headlines & Opinion

2013 & 2012

2011

2010

Resources

Reports

International NGO Statement Critical of Administration's CVE Strategy

Date: 
July 20, 2015

The largest group of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to date has responded to the Obama administration’s new “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) strategy.

C&SN Signs On to Letter Objecting to CVE Expansion

Date: 
July 15, 2015

The Charity & Security Network, joined by 42 civil liberties, human rights and racial justice organizations, has signed onto a letter expressing grave concerns about a proposed bill that would create a division devoted to “countering violent extremism” (CVE) within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The office would be headed by a new Assistant Secretary and supported by a career Deputy Assistant Secretary, and the bill allocates $10 million annually from the budget of the Office of the Secretary of DHS to this new program.

H.R. 2899, The Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015, was introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (D-TX) June 25. A hearing on the bill was held July 15 in the House Committee on Homeland Security, followed by bill markup. Representatives from DHS did not attend the hearing, while many observers have speculated on the reasons for its absence. The bill passed out of committee that evening on a voice vote.

State Department Outlines CVE Strategy in New QDDR

Date: 
May 12, 2015

Countering violent extremism (CVE) plays a prominent role in the second Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), the State Department’s policy roadmap, released April 28 by Secretary of State John Kerry. While the CVE strategy, as outlined in the report, emphasizes the importance of a free and functioning civil society, it echoes the rhetoric from the February White House Summit on CVE and the September 2014 Presidential Memorandum, which focuses on restrictions imposed by foreign governments and does not address the global impact of U.S. restrictions on civil society. Desptie this, the QDDR presents yet another potential opening to create dialogue around this issue. Read more

State Department Outlines CVE Strategy in New QDDR

Date: 
May 12, 2015

Countering violent extremism (CVE) plays a prominent role in the second Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), the State Department’s policy roadmap, released April 28 by Secretary of State John Kerry. While the CVE strategy, as outlined in the report, emphasizes the importance of a free and functioning civil society, it echoes the rhetoric from the February White House Summit on CVE and the September 2014 presidential memorandum, which focuses on restrictions imposed by foreigh governments and does not address the global impact of U.S. restrictions on civil society. Despite this the report presents yet another potential opening to create dialogue around this issue.

To Increase Peace, Tackle Corruption, Report States

Date: 
May 11, 2015

Improvements in peace are ultimately dependent on decreases in corruption, concludes a new report by the Institute for Economics & Peace, Peace and Corruption 2015. Although the report found that keeping corruption under control is essential for building and maintaining peaceful societies, there is no indication of the causal relationship between peace and corruption. Read more.

To Increase Peace, Tackle Corruption, Report States

Date: 
May 11, 2015

Improvements in peace are ultimately dependent on decreases in corruption, concludes a new report by the Institute for Economics & Peace, Peace and Corruption 2015. Although the report found that keeping corruption under control is essential for building and maintaining peaceful societies, there is no indication of the causal relationship between peace and corruption.

Report: Injustices, Not Economics, Drive Youth Recruitment in Armed Groups

Date: 
April 20, 2015

Experiences of injustice, rather than economics, drive youth to armed movements, according to a new report by Mercy Corps, Youth & Consequences: Unemployment, Injustice and Violence. According to the report, a growing body of evidence finds no relationship between unemployment and young people’s willingness to engage in or support political violence. Instead, recruitment is driven by factors such as discrimination, corruption, normalized violence, and poor governance. Furthermore, supply-side vocational training risks raising expectations that cannot be satisfied and aggravating perceptions of unfairness, especially where programs fail to target the most marginalized, are manipulated by local elites, or increase vocational skills rather than the supply of jobs. Read the full report. 

Report: Injustices, Not Economics, Drive Youth Recruitment in Armed Groups

Date: 
April 20, 2015

Experiences of injustice, rather than economics, drive youth to armed movements, according to a new report by Mercy Corps, Youth & Consequences: Unemployment, Injustice and Violence. According to the report, a growing body of evidence finds no relationship between unemployment and young people’s willingness to engage in or support political violence. Instead, recruitment is driven by factors such as discrimination, corruption, normalized violence, and poor governance. Furthermore, supply-side vocational training risks raising expectations that cannot be satisfied and aggravating perceptions of unfairness, especially where programs fail to target the most marginalized, are manipulated by local elites, or increase vocational skills rather than the supply of jobs.

Could New Laws to Fight Terrorism Actually Help Fuel It?

Date: 
April 6, 2015

 

David Cortright, Associate Director of Programs and Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame has published a blog for the Global Observatory that asks a question that does not get enough attention: Could new laws to fight terrorism actually help fuel it?

 

Noting the wave of new counterterrorism laws passed since the emergence of ISIS, Cortright says, “While these laws have a purported purpose of improving national security, there is a risk that punitive measures that widen police and intelligence powers will have limited utility and narrow the political freedoms and human rights protections that many in these societies consider essential. More significantly, they could prove counterproductive to fighting terrorism by increasing the marginalization of communities.”

 

The blog also notes the counterproductive impact on civil society and the role it migt otherwise be able to play in building human security. Cortrights says,“Restrictive measures adopted in the name of counterterrorism can have the effect of hindering civil society efforts to overcome the conditions that give rise to terrorism...Yet restrictions on charitable funding, barriers to dialogue with radicalized communities, and the weakening of human rights protections make this work more difficult, as noted in the Friend not Foe report for the Dutch development agency Cordaid.”

Syndicate content