Counterradicalization in the Netherlands

By Lorenzo Vidino

I have an article in the latest issue of The Sentinel, the West Point Combating Terrorism Center’s journal. The piece is entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Counter-Radicalization in the Netherlands and describes various programs implemented by Dutch authorities, focusing particularly on those of the city of Amsterdam. The second part of the article analyzes the relationship between authorities and political Salafists/non-violent Islamists, a topic that has been addressed several times by CT blog contributors and, most recently, in an excellent post by Matt Levitt. This is what I wrote in The Sentinel:

…..Dutch authorities are faced with the same dilemma haunting most of their Western counterparts: can non-violent Islamists be engaged and used as partners against violent radicalization? Can Western offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood or political Salafists like those active in the Netherlands become partners against the appeal of jihadists? The Dutch seem to address these questions by drawing a clear line between engaging and empowering. All sorts of voices, as long as they do not advocate violence, should be engaged, since pushing non-violent Islamists at the margins could have negative repercussions. Nevertheless, authorities feel they cannot consider them as permanent partners, as there is a clear understanding that these forces espouse a message that clashes with the Dutch government’s ideas of democracy, integration and cohesive society.

This assessment leads to a case-by-case approach in which authorities engage non-violent Islamists when they need to and when common ground can be found. This policy was implemented, for example, during the months preceding the release of the controversial movie Fitna by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Security services held several meetings with some of the most radical Salafist imams in the country, explaining that the Dutch government did not support Wilders and obtaining from the imams a promise, later kept, that they would have urged their followers not to react violently to the movie. Nevertheless, the security services do not consider political Salafists as reliable partners and advise local authorities from doing so. The security services’ advice is particularly important since political Salafists have been regularly approaching municipalities and provinces with offers of partnership in counter-radicalization and integration programs….

As Matt correctly stated, the reality on the ground is what dictates the policies and attitudes of authorities. Given the situation in most European countries, some form of cooperation with political Salafists/non-violent Islamists is necessary (even though that does not necessarily mean that that is the right policy in other places). What is important is to understand the real aims of our interlocutors and to keep clear in mind the difference between engaging and empowering. The Dutch seem to get both concepts.

TrackBack