![]()
Part I
Foreign fighters, radicalization and jihadist terrorism as a challenge for the EU
![]()
1 A psychosocial evidence-based approach to radicalization and terrorism
Humberto M. Trujillo Mendoza and Manuel Moyano Pacheco
Introduction
Violent radicalization and terrorism receive priority attention from Member States of the European Union; however, this problem is not new in Europe. Thus, some authors have distinguished between what has been termed âold terrorismâ and ânew terrorismâ (Laqueur, 1999, 2002). From this perspective, within âold terrorismâ we could include the different waves of political violence deployed in the 1970s and 1980s by organizations that operated at a very localized level and that sought social revolutions, independence or the promotion of nationalism. Among those groups we could mention Die Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), Brigate Rosse or the Irish Republican Army (IRA). On the contrary, ânew terrorismâ refers to those groups that seek to transform reality based on a fundamentally religious ideology, attacking people and objects indiscriminately throughout the world. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (11S), 11 March 2004 (11M) and 7 July 2005 (7J), the main threat comes from these types of groups, ideologically inspired by jihadist Salafism.
Although there are also terrorist incidents unrelated to jihadism, it is jihadism that produces the most serious forms of terrorist activity, having increased in number progressively and exponentially over the last decade (Wensink et al., 2017). In the last three years, different jihadist attacks have occurred in European cities, such as Paris, Nice, Stockholm, Berlin, Manchester, London, Brussels and more recently in Barcelona and Cambrils. According to the latest annual report on the situation and trends of terrorism in the European Union (European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation [EUROPOL], 2017), a total of 142 attacks were counted in 2016, of which 135 (95%) were jihadist, with 718 arrests in the European Union. In contrast to nationalist and separatist terrorism and most manifestations of extreme-right-wing and extreme-left-wing violent radicalism, jihadism has a transnational character. Thus, instability in regions such as the Middle East, North Africa or Southeast Asia has inexorable repercussions in the old continent. Taking into account both the internal dynamics of the countries of this environment regarding the integration of Muslims, as in the international context, the risks derived from jihadism have become a structural challenge and, therefore, of great social importance for security, democratic values ââand social cohesion. In addition, this threat will persist over the coming years, with no sign of having simple solutions in the short term.
In the current context, the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters travelling to different places to join the jihad, as well as their potential return to their countries of origin, has created new problems that need to be answered from a social, legal and security point of view (Cragin, 2017; Marrero, 2016). By early 2016, the number of people who had travelled to Iraq and Syria to take up arms with Islamic insurgent groups and terrorists as foreign terrorist fighters had increased to over 42,000, and a significant proportion of these individuals came from European countries (Perliger & Milton, 2016). In addition, a recent report by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism estimates that of around 3,922 to 4,294 foreign terrorist fighters from Europe, about 30% have returned to their countries of origin (Van Ginkel & Entenmann, 2016).
Thus, most European countries have developed national strategies that serve as a framework for addressing radicalization and terrorism. Programmes have also been developed to identify people vulnerable to violent radicalization in order to refer them to the appropriate devices and interventions, either from a police point of view or as a psychosocial educational intervention. To cite just a few examples, in the United Kingdom the Channel Project was introduced; Spain introduced the Stop Radicalisms programme; and France has the Stop Djihadisme programme. Other actions have focused on developing local anti-radicalization initiatives or on programmes to rehabilitate and reintegrate extremists â some of which have been unsuccessful (El-Said, 2015; Horgan & Braddock, 2010; Schuurman & Van Der Heide, 2016).
Despite the widespread attention of the mass media on the phenomenon, very little is known about the strategies applied and the protocols derived from the anti-radicalization programmes to address this social problem in the short and long term. Today there are a series of unresolved problems resulting from the very complexity of the phenomenon. In general, we can say that we do not have enough scientific data to explain, predict and prevent radicalization, nor the behaviour of the terrorists and the groups that support them. Therefore, in the psychosocial study of this complex phenomenon, there are a number of unresolved problems that make it difficult to be effective in understanding, coping with and preventing it (Moyano & Trujillo, 2013; Trujillo, 2009). Among other problems, the following may be mentioned: (1) questions about violent radicalization and terrorism have been asked essentially from a sociology and political science perspective, usually using a descriptive and rarely an explanatory-predictive methodology for responses; (2) the forecasts made from the answers to these questions are not at all useful for carrying out effective anti-radicalization and anti-terrorism operations, as they are based on the description (what happens), not on the explanation of what, when, where and how it happens; (3) a good number of the published works related to this social problem are not rigorous from a scientific point of view, since their contents can be understood as merely intuitive and speculative generalizations from descriptive data obtained once the terrorist action has already taken place; and (4) there are no empirical studies on critical incidents, nor much likelihood of any, since it is not easy to access data and classified information from the operational practice of the different security agencies.
On the basis of all of the above, we must admit that at present our scientific understanding of radicalization and terrorist behaviour, as well as the functioning of social groups that legitimize it, is relatively poor, which promotes levels of cognitive dissonance at the time of making decisions about how to anticipate, prevent and treat these phenomena.
This chapter reviews and discusses a number of aspects related to the scientific status of knowledge about terrorism, arguing for an evidence-based approach. The structure of the chapter is as follows. First, the evidence-based approach is explained by introducing the concepts of systematic review and meta-analysis and points out how they could be useful in the area of counter-terrorism. Second, those aspects that have characterized research on this phenomenon are set out and the challenges that should be addressed to improve their status are discussed. Some research and works with practical implications for researchers and practitioners are then reviewed and discussed. The chapter finishes with some conclusions and future proposals for a confrontation of radicalization and evidence-based terrorism.
Although the chapter will address the phenomenon of radicalization and terrorism in a generic way, it will further illustrate jihadist terrorism and, in particular, the new threat from the mobilization and potential return of so-called foreign terrorist fighters that can be represented from the point of view of risk management.
Towards an anti-terrorist psychosocial proposal based on evidence
The development of policies and professional practices aimed at solving social problems should be based on the best scientific evidence. This proposition, reasonable but not always assumed, can be applied to any professional field and, as such, to anti-terrorism interventions. To do this, one would have to answer questions such as the following: What are the phases underlying the recruitment and mobilization of terrorists? How should we act to minimize the legitimacy of terrorism? How do prejudice and discrimination influence violent radicalization? What are the risk and protection factors that contribute to radicalization? What are the psychosocial factors that make a person vulnerable to recruitment, psychic subjection and ideological indoctrination, and therefore recruitment by radical groups? How can we de-radicalize people who are already radicalized? Are terrorist rehabilitation programmes effective?
Decision-makers and practitioners in the field of counter-terrorism should decide what strategy, programmes, treatment or interventions to apply based on the evidence accumulated in objective and rigorous empirical evaluative studies, duly designed and implemented. In addition, social, educational, health and public safety policies should also be decided by taking into account the accumulated scientific evidence, which confirms how best to deal with existing problems and challenges.
To this end, the evidence-based practice (EBP) approach has emerged as a strategy to ensure that the programmes, treatments and interventions that are applied in practice are as rigorous as possible. The concept of EBP, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, is briefly discussed below.
Evidence-based practice
Evidence-based practice refers to those practices, actions and decisions that are grounded on objective evidence obtained from scientific research. It is intended to minimize the presence of biases, personal opinions or emotions, which can contaminate the decision-making process, thus leading to measures that produce better results. The concept of EBP originated in the 1990s in the field of medicine (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes & Richardson, 1996). Basically, evidence-based medicine could be defined as the systematic, rigorous and judicious use of the best current evidence to make decisions about patient health (Hjørland, 2011; Jovell & Navarro-Rubio, 1995). From this approach, physicians seek to treat patients with those methods that have proven to be effective. Currently, this trend has been consolidated as part of the culture in health sciences. Although there are still significant gaps between existing evidence-based knowledge and its application, the general trend is in the direction of using basic and applied scientific research to guide practice (Glasziou, Ogrinc & Goodman, 2011; Pope, Mays & Popay, 2007). Due to its importance, institutions, managers and health professionals refer to evidence-based medicine as a quality aspect that improves their effectiveness and efficiency. The point is to avoid subjectivity and for opportunistic guesswork to be minimized. Due to the potential benefits, EBP has been extended to other social science disciplines, generating currents such as evidence-based psychology, education, criminology or economics (Sånchez-Meca, Boruch, Petrosino & Rosa, 2002).
Although each discipline, whether in the realm of physical-natural sciences, health or social sciences, has its own characteristics, nature and challenges, the principles underlying evidence-based practice are similar. That is, in any field, the systematic, rigorous, judicious â and therefore scientific â use of the best available empirical evidence is sought in order to decide the most appropriate roadmap in order to obtain the best results in the practice.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
However, for the EBP perspective to be operational, systematic reviews of empirical studies are needed to provide information on which programmes are most efficacious and effective in resolving or preventing a given problem (SĂĄnchez-Meca & Botella, 2010). Basically, a systematic review is an objective review of a clearly formulated question whose answer should integrate the empirical studies that have been carried out. If statistical methods are applied to the results of empirical studies, then this systematic review is called a meta-analysis, which is the most potent review possible (SĂĄnchez-Meca & Botella, 2010). Meta-analyses thus provide crucial information that, used properly by managers and politicians, can help to optimize professional practice. As a result of the increase in the EPB approach, there are many initiatives being taken at the international level to promote this approach, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In this sense, it is necessary to mention initiatives derived from the Cochrane Collaboration (in the field of medicine and health sciences) and the Campbell Collaboration (in the context of social, educational and behavioural sciences). These two international organizations promote high-quality meta-analytical studies on the effective...
