Publikasjoner
Working Paper on enabling environments, drivers, and occurrence/nonoccurrence of violent extremism
Based on extensive desk research and fieldwork, the present paper aims to analyze the various drivers of violent extremism (VE) in the contemporary Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Republic of North Macedonia, and Serbia) and the elaboration of a refined, nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of the concept of ‘enabling environment’, i.e., the cluster or combination of various factors in a given society that renders the emergence of violent extremism likely. When approaching the varying impact of ideological radicalization and hate speech, we seek to make a distinction between contexts, where radicalization morphs into violence (“occurrence”), and contexts, where it does not (“non-occurrence”). Thus, the paper seeks to provide an analytical explanation of the central question of why some communities tend to be more resilient to violent extremist ideologies than others, despite identical “enabling” conditions. Given the geopolitical significance of the Western Balkan region, an approach that prioritizes non-occurrence of violence may respond more adequately to the strategic need for strengthening resilience to radicalization, extremism and terrorism there.
Working Paper on enabling environments, drivers, and occurrence/nonoccurrence of violent extremism
Why does violent extremism not occur in enabling environments? Based on recent field work in the Sahel and the Maghreb region this is the main question we seek to understand in this working paper. To understand non-occurrence and thereby the foundations of social and individual resilience, we also need to understand the drivers of violent extremism and why they gain traction among some populations while others show much higher degrees of resilience. To achieve this, we will zoom in on cases in Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Morocco, showcasing different trajectories of occurrence and non-occurrence.
Policy brief summarizing lessons learnt on the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism in the region
How do EU initiatives that are geared to help prevent and counter violent extremism in North Africa and the Sahel match the underlying drivers of radicalisation? This PREVEX Policy Brief offers a reading of EU strategies in the backlight of our findings, which stem from fieldwork that was conducted in cases of both occurrence and non-occurrence of violent extremist escalation across North Africa and the Sahel. As scholarly literature lays emphasis on how phenomena such as violent extremism are highly context-dependent, it is crucial to understand regional and local dynamics of social change and intermediation. This brief therefore provides an overall assessment of EU P/CVE policies and projects in North Africa and the Sahel, focusing on key contextual policy issues: democratic governance, rule of law, education, gender, reintegration. It argues that EU’s emphasis on rule of law is particularly appropriate, while there is room for greater engagement in the fields of education and reintegration – provided that conflict-sensitive lenses are carefully applied. In the fields of democratic governance and gender, instead, a mismatch between general strategies and on-the-ground implementation can be observed. Targeted research in these critical areas of intervention and assistance is highly needed. Overall, our analysis invites to consider radicalisation processes not as social pathology but as ongoing social phenomena that take place in a space where several actors rival for material and ideational resources, and therefore require careful assessment and multi-scalar prioritisation, including at the regional and transnational level.
Parade, Plebiscite, Pandemic: Legitimation Efforts in Putin’s Fourth Term
Putin’s fourth term as president (2018–2024) has involved new challenges for Russia’s hybrid regime. COVID-19 hit the Kremlin at a sensitive time, when the old institutional forces had been demounted and new arrangements, including extensive constitutional changes, had yet to become cemented. There is an emerging gulf between state rhetoric, PR events, and patriotic performances, on the one hand, and economic chaos, social disorder and dysfunctional state capacity, on the other, which is likely to reduce system legitimacy and cause increased reliance on repressive methods. This article examines Kremlin legitimation efforts across Beetham’s three dimensions: rules, beliefs, and actions. We argue that the regime’s legitimation efforts in 2020–21 have failed to reverse emerging cleavages in public opinion since 2018. Increased reliance on repression and manipulation in this period, combined with the contrast between regime promises and observable realities on the ground, speak not of strength, but of the Kremlin’s increased weakness and embattlement.
Policy brief comparing the EU and other stakeholders’ prevention strategy towards violent extremism in the Balkans and the broader MENA region
This policy brief offers a cross-regional comparison of PREVEX findings regarding the efficacity of the EU’s PVE efforts. Based upon an amalgamation of PREVEX partners’ policy briefs over the Balkans (D5.1), the Maghreb/Sahel (D6.1) and the Middle East (D7.1), two reports on respectively EU’s policies and instruments for PVE (D4.1) and the implementation of these (D4.2), further corroborated by an extensive validation background study (D8), we have the following recommendations to the EU: EU – ‘DOs’ -Increase cooperation with High Muslim Councils -Enhance their standing -Empower them to act against IVE EU – ‘DON’Ts’ – A, B, C -Avoid the all-out securitization of everything ‘Islamic’. -Block imported Islamic ‘Madhhab’ (Wahabism) from entering European spheres -Consult ‘elders’ and rethink funding youth projects that lack proven PVEimpact
Policy brief summarizing lessons learnt on the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism in the region
There are a number of grievances attributed as drivers of violent extremism. Poverty, autocratic governance and human rights violations, precarious masculinities, or the lack of education, mentioning just some, all create what we may term “enabling environments” – areas in which various factors create a conducive situation where segments of its population become prone to violent extremism. Still, the majority living in such enabling environments and experiencing these grievances do not engage in any acts of violence or join any extremist organizations. This begs the question, why do some communities display far greater resilience to violent extremist ideologies than others? In our newly released PREVEX working paper analyzing the drivers, occurrence, and non-occurrence of violent extremism in the MENA region, we study four cases of the nonoccurrence of violent extremism in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.1 Specifically, we analyze why segments among disenfranchised Islamist Egyptian youth, the majority of Jordanian jihadists, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), and the Syrian village Swedan in the Deir Ez-Zor province have displayed a far greater resilience to carrying out violent extremism than others. We assess the role and importance of local community and religious leaders, the role of tribal affiliation, ideological exposure, good governance and political inclusion, poverty and marginalization, and state repression. We address both a scholarly puzzle and a policy problem. If the aforementioned grievances create enabling environments conducive to violent extremism, why is it that the majority in these situations actually abstain from violence and reject extremist ideologies? What does that tell us about the role and dynamics of enabling environments? The policy problem relates to how one evaluates, weighs, and approaches populations in enabling environments and who are thus perceived to be prone to violent extremism. Put bluntly, should a population residing in an enabling environment be treated as future extremists or terrorists, to wit, a problem in need of securitization? Necessarily, these findings have consequences for how we perceive the feasibility of past and current EU funding programs intended to prevent violent extremism in the Middle East.
Working Paper on ´enabling environments´, drivers and occurrence/nonoccurrence of violent extremism in the region
There are a number of grievances attributed as drivers of violent extremism. Poverty, autocratic governance, human rights violations, precarious masculinities, or the lack of education, mentioning just some, all create what we may term “enabling environments”. Still, the majority living in such enabling environments and who experience such grievances do not engage in any acts of violence or join any violent extremist organizations. This begs the question, why do some communities display far greater resilience to violent extremist ideologies than others? Based on in-depth fieldwork in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, we study and analyze four cases of the non-occurrence of violent extremism in the Middle East to further our understanding of enabling environments, community resilience, and the decisive moments pushing people to, or away from, violence.
European defence beyond institutional boundaries: Improved European defence through flexibility, differentiation and coordination
Som et svar på den endrede geopolitiske situasjonen er det tatt initiativer for å styrke det europeiske forsvaret i NATO, i EU, men også bi- og multilateralt mellom EUs medlemsland og assosierte ikke-medlemmer, som Norge. Denne policy-briefen argumenterer for at alle disse prosessene må tas i betraktning når vi ønsker å måle Europas fulle sikkerhets- og forsvarskapasitet. Snarere enn et tegn på fragmentering forbereder de grunnen for en ny europeisk forsvarsarkitektur, preget av høy grad av fleksibilitet, som til slutt kan være bedre tilpasset dagens sikkerhetskontekst. For å maksimere effekten av denne differensierte forsvarsarkitekturen er det imidlertid nødvendig med en viss koordinering mellom de ulike initiativene. Det er nå et vindu med mulighet for slik koordinering, ettersom to nøkkelprosesser nå kjører parallelt: utviklingen av et nytt «strategisk konsept» for NATO og utviklingen av et «strategisk kompass» i EU. Hvis dette lykkes, kan vi håpe på utviklingen av et mer fleksibelt og dyktig europeisk forsvar.
Nordic Airpower Cooperation and Finland’s F-35 decision: Towards a New Era?
De nordiske luftforsvarene har et tett samarbeidet, som særlig tiltok etter at Russland rustet opp militært og endret operasjonsmønsteret fra rundt 2007-2008. Etter 2014 har det også vært en økende sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitisk integrasjon i Norden, men som en del av det generelle vestlige samarbeidet og ikke et alternativt spor. Her spiller det nordiske luftforsvarssamarbeidet en sentral rolle, samtidig som politisk og militær integrasjon har åpnet for ytterligere samarbeid. Ordningen for regelmessig grensekryssende jagerflytrening er en viktig del av luftforsvarssamarbeidet, ved siden av multinasjonale taktiske og fellesoperative øvelser. Fly fra USA, Canada og flere europeiske land deltar i noen av aktivitetene. Etter hvert som de nordiske landene tar i bruk nye generasjons jagerfly og andre nye luftmaktssystemer vil samarbeidet endre form. Men grunnet dets betydning på både taktisk og strategisk nivå vil regionalt luftmaktssamarbeid vedvare i årene som kommer innenfor rammen av det europeiske og transatlantiske forsvarssamarbeidet. Finske myndigheter har besluttet å anskaffe 64 F-35 Lightning II femte generasjon kampfly til å erstatte dagens flåte av F/A-18 Hornet. Norskutviklede Joint Strike Missile er en del av anskaffelsen. Finland vil med dette operere en av de største F-35-flåtene i Europa og samme flytype som det norske og danske luftforsvaret. Det svenske forsvaret vil i fremtiden ha omtrent 100 Gripen 4,5 generasjon kampfly ved å kjøpe 60 nye Gripen E kampfly og oppgradere circa 40 fly i dagens flåte. Svensk forsvarsindustri deltar i utviklingen av det britiske sjette generasjon kampflyet Tempest som er planlagt å innføre etter 2035. Anskaffelsen av F-35 og moderniseringen av den svenske kampflyparken vil føre til at nordiske land vil være viktige bidragsytere til moderne europeisk luftmakt.
AUKUS and its implications for Asia, US-European relations and non-proliferation
AUKUS-avtalen mellom Australia, Storbritannia og USA kom som et jordskjelv i september og har blitt fulgt av flere etterskjelv på den internasjonale arenaen. Mest oppmerksomhet har blitt viet til bestemmelsen om at Australia skal produsere atomdrevne ubåter med amerikansk teknologi og skrotingen av avtalen om å kjøpe dieseldrevne ubåter fra Frankrike. Kanskje enda viktigere er de politiske, strategiske og teknologiske aspektene ved AUKUS-avtalen. Avtalen er en klar indikator på amerikanernes økende fokus på Asia og vil ha konsekvenser for USAs forhold til EU, Frankrike og NATO. Selv om AUKUS ikke medfører noen spredningsrisiko når det gjelder kjernevåpen, så åpner avtalen for at flere vil forsøke å anskaffe atomdrevne ubåter. Dette baner vei for at flere stater kan fremme legitime eller illegitime krav om å produsere høyanriket uran. Det gjenstår å se hvorvidt de strategiske fordelene som AUKUS-avtalen medfører i Indo-Stillehavsregionen vil veie opp for de politiske kostnadene for transatlantiske forhold og for bildet av USA som en pålitelig samarbeidshetspartner.