HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSIONS OF PREVENTING AND COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a panel discussion aimed at examining the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/15.

Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video message, said that human rights abuses by violent extremists directly assaulted the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. His new Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism stressed that full respect for human rights and accountability for wrongdoing were essential to heal broken societies and successfully counter the threat of violent extremists. Violent extremism had to be addressed as an urgent human rights priority, while avoiding sweeping definitions that encroached human rights.

Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the prevention of violent extremism required the mobilization of a multitude of actors drawn from across a range of sectors and programmatic areas, and a strong grounding in human rights and the rule of law. The negative impact of heavy-handed counter-terrorism responses in the years following 9/11 had widened the rift between communities, deepened distrust and generated divisive and often hateful public discourse. Selective application of the term “violent extremism” only to Muslims reinforced intolerance and discrimination.

Beatriz Londoño Soto, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, contextualized and introduced the concept under discussion and recalled that Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 reaffirmed States’ international obligations to promote and protect human rights while preventing and countering violent extremism.

Nazila Ghanea, Member of the Board of Trustees of Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, said that without the safeguards for legality set by resolution 30/15, actions aimed at preventing violent extremism risked fuelling that very thing. The 2023 Rabat Action Plan presented a three-part test for restrictions on legality, proportionality and necessity that were essential to preventing violent extremism.

Gastón Garatea, Professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and former Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty, said that poverty was a breeding ground for human rights violations. Every element of the society, at all levels, had to be involved in efforts to eradicate it. People had to be given opportunities to be heard. The Professor referred to such fora and consultations held in Peru for the past 16 years.

Mehreen Farooq, Senior Fellow at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, explained her organization’s work to enhance communication and understanding between communities to mitigate social and political conflict. Radicalization could be fuelled by sociological, psychological, ideological, economic and political factors. Religious ideology alone did not radicalize individuals.

Ahmed Abbadi, Secretary-General of La Rabita Mohammadia des Oulémas and Professor at Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakesh, stressed the need to build the capacity of religious leaders. The preservation of life was one of the main requirements of Islam, and scholars trained to understand the spirit and finalities of religious texts could then implement them through concrete actions in favour of human rights.

During the dialogue, speakers stated that violent extremism was a global threat that required long-term measures and a global approach with a focus on its root causes was needed. Violent extremism often stemmed from a lack of respect for human rights, oppression and poverty. Preventing and countering violent extremism depended on the effective protection and promotion of human rights, speakers said, emphasizing the importance of education and cultural dialogue, and pointing at the important role of civil society and religious leaders. Speakers also noted the absence of an accepted definition of terrorism and extremism, which engendered a risk of abusing measures to prevent these phenomena as a mean to target activists and opponents.

Speaking were Albania on behalf of the Core Group on the Countering Violent Extremist resolution, Morocco on behalf of the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training, Australia on behalf of Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey and Australia, European Union, Kuwait on behalf of the Arab Group, Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, United States, Qatar, Ecuador, Nigeria, Syria, Croatia, Austria, Australia, Singapore, Tunisia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Russian Federation, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Republic of Korea, Council of Europe, Malaysia, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Morocco and Turkey.

Article 19, Americans for Human Rights and Democracy in Bahrain, Amnesty International, Association Miraisme International, World Jewish Congress, Global Network for Rights and Development, and Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme also took the floor.

The Council will resume its work on Friday, 18 March at 9 a.m., to hold a panel discussion on the incompatibility between democracy and racism. At noon, it will consider the Universal Periodic Review outcome of Sao Tome and Principe, followed by general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. At 3 p.m., it will hold a debate on the state of racial discrimination worldwide.

Opening Statements

CHOI KYONGLIM, President of the Human Rights Council, said that, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/15, the Council would now hold a panel discussion to examine the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism.

BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a video message, said that human rights abuses by violent extremists directly assaulted the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. His new Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism stressed that human rights and the rule of law should be central when countering or preventing violent extremism. While there could be no justification for violent extremism, there was a need to examine its drivers to develop effective, rights-based responses. That meant addressing discrimination, ensuring good governance and providing access to education, social services and employment opportunities. These steps could help strengthen trust between State institutions and the people they served. Morally wrong approaches were counterproductive because they further alienated marginalized communities. Violent extremism had to be addressed as an urgent human rights priority, while avoiding the use of sweeping definitions of terrorism or violent extremism that encroached human rights. Full respect for human rights and accountability for wrongdoing were essential to heal broken societies and successfully counter the threat of violent extremists.

KATE GILMORE, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, reminded that the Secretary-General’s recent Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism highlighted that violent extremism was the child of many parents: discrimination or injustice, whether actual or perceived; political disenfranchisement; and a sense among young people of powerlessness, of denial of identity, and of hopelessness. Prevention of violent extremism required the mobilization of a multitude of actors drawn from across a range of sectors and programmatic areas, and a strong grounding in human rights and the rule of law. Responses to violent extremism that respected and protected human rights were more effective and sustainable. Equality and non-discrimination were the roots for a strong foundation for preventing and countering violent extremism. Accountability for human rights violations and abuses was essential for enduring solutions to violent extremism and had long-lasting effects. The breeding ground for violent extremism was heightened in the context of poor governance and repressive policies and practices which violated human rights. The negative impact of heavy-handed counter-terrorism responses in the years following 9/11 had widened the rift between communities, deepened distrust and generated divisive and often hateful public discourse. Selective application of the term “violent extremism” only to Muslim believers reinforced intolerance and discrimination. Policies and laws that combatted social exclusion and marginalization in that struggle, as well as enhancing access to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by and for everyone on an equal basis, were key. A more comprehensive plan of action for preventing or countering violent extremism was a welcome and urgently needed shift away from a security only approach, Ms. Gilmore concluded.

Statements by the Moderator and Panellists

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and moderator of the panel, contextualized and introduced the concept under discussion and introduced the first panellist, Nazila Ghanea. Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 reaffirmed States’ international obligations to promote and protect human rights while preventing and countering violent extremism, as well as the commitment of States to address the conditions conducive to violent extremism. Ms. Ghanea was asked to elaborate on how States and the international community should respond to violent extremism?

NAZILA GHANEA, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, said that the safeguards for legality within resolution 30/15 were crucial, adding that without them, the very actions aimed at preventing violent extremism risked fuelling that very thing. Regarding States’ addressing of conditions conducive to violent extremism, she focused her remarks on freedom of religion or belief and non-discrimination. On the former, she said prevention was one facet of freedom of religion or belief. She addressed other aspects of freedom of religion or belief before turning to a discussion on Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 on combatting intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief. It reminded of the need for non-discrimination, meaningful participation, and the need to make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, without which again the very actions aimed at preventing violent extremism risked stimulating it further. The Rabat Plan of Action of 2012 presented a three-part test for restrictions on legality, proportionality and necessity that were essential to preventing violent extremism. It also recognized that root causes required empowering minorities and ensuring their space for the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. There were numerous and serious human rights risks that could flow from the very broad scope of actions that could be taken by States in response to preventing violent extremism.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, asked the next panellist to share his views on how poverty eradication could be part of strategies to address violent extremism.

GASTÓN GARATEA, Professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and former Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty, said that each party to a conflict had a reason to take such a part. The search for a solution at any price was not the best way to solve disputes. Parties had to seek a solution themselves. Those involved in extreme violence were fully aware of the reason why they had been marginalized. Poverty was a breeding ground for human rights violations, he said. Every element of the society, at all levels, had to be involved in efforts to eradicate poverty. People had to be given opportunities to be heard. Mr. Garatea referred to such fora and consultations held in Peru for the past 16 years.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, reminded that the Council resolution 30/15 stressed the need to address conditions conducive to violent extremism by engaging all concerned groups of civil society, and in particular by empowering women as well as youth. She asked the next panellist to share her views and experience of the role that civil society organizations could play in preventing and countering violent extremism.

MEHREEN FAROOQ, Senior Fellow at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, explained her organization’s work, whose mission was to enhance communication and understanding between communities to mitigate social and political conflict. The organization had identified five major risk factors of radicalization, which included sociological conditions, psychological factors, economic factors, political grievances and ideological factors. That framework had illustrated that what motivated an individual to join a violent extremist organization, like a neo-Nazi group, was not much different from what motivated an individual to join ISIS. It indicated that religious ideology alone did not radicalize individuals. In fact, approximately 40 per cent of those arrested for ISIS related crimes in the United States were committed Muslim converts, which indicated that racial profiling tactics were not necessarily effective. To address the multi-faceted threat of violent extremism, the organization had developed a unique collective impact initiative, informally known across the world as the Montgomery County Model, which brought together public and private stakeholders to promote public safety and social cohesion in Montgomery County, Maryland. The work was based on the premise that if there was an informed public that understood the threat of violent extremism and the risk factors of radicalization, then that public was well-equipped to identify vulnerable individuals and could refer them for an intervention before they engaged in violence. To date, the organization had trained hundreds of local law enforcement officers, educators and faith community members. Multi-stakeholder collaboration was vital in promoting social cohesion, Ms. Farooq emphasized.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, introduced the next panellist and asked him what local and religious leaders could do to prevent violent extremism.

AHMED ABBADI, Secretary-General of La Rabita Mohammadia des Oulémas and Professor at Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakesh, said that in every religion there was a text, and in face of this text there was always a context. He stressed the need to build the capacity of religious leaders to interpret texts in their context, to understand their era and the issues faced. The preservation of life was one of the main requirements of Islam, he said. Scholars trained to understand the spirit and finalities of religious texts could then implement them through concrete actions in favour of human rights. He explained that he had worked with children and scholars to promote non-violence, and to build their capacity in this regard. When people’s aspirations were not met, then groups such as “Da’esh” could jump in with their ideology of fear and violence.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, agreed that religion itself was not a factor for violent extremism. She underlined the importance of research-based evaluations, and stressed that human rights were a transversal issue that should serve to prevent extremism.

Discussion

Albania, speaking on behalf of the Core Group on the Countering Violent Extremism Resolution, emphasized that governments could not prevent and counter violent extremism on their own. This required a whole-of-society approach, maximizing everyone’s added value. Morocco, speaking on behalf of the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training, stressed the importance of human rights education, which was the key tool in preventing and combatting violent extremism. How did the panellists view its role in the promotion of responsible citizenship? Australia, speaking on behalf of Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkey and Australia, said that these countries represented the great diversity of the international community, which stood united against terrorism and violent extremism. It was only through concerted action and fulfilling obligations under international law that hatred, intolerance and violence could be ended. European Union stressed that preventing and countering violent extremism depended on the effective protection and promotion of human rights, which were mutually reinforcing. How could national action plans for the prevention of violent extremism address a phenomenon that did not respect borders?

Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, stated that the protection of human rights and combatting violent extremism had interrelated objectives. Violent extremism and terrorism took different forms and often stemmed from oppression and poverty. Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, believed that no country was immune to violent extremism. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law should be of particular concern in the fight against violent extremism. How did the panel see the role of civil society and human rights defenders in preventing violent extremism?

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, stated that there was no accepted definition of violent extremism, but there was a need to address it by looking into the political, economic and social contexts, especially into marginalization and alienation. United States noted that Government agencies had to be more open to civil society in order to comprehensively address the challenge of violent extremism, and they had to respect their human rights obligations. Qatar stated that violent extremism was a global threat that required a global approach with a focus on its root cases, and not only on its security dimension. Foreign occupation, such as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, was one of the major causes of violent extremism. Ecuador stated that intercultural respect and international cooperation were key to addressing violent extremism, in addition to adopting a multi-dimensional view of security. Nigeria rejected the argument that the continued absence of a definition of violent extremism should prohibit States from taking action against perpetrators, all the while noting that all sanctions against violent extremism had to be in line with the rule of law. Syria stated that in the light of the growing efforts to confront violent extremism, it was necessary to define the concept and get away from any double standards. There was a need to emphasize the cultural and intellectual aspects of the recruitment of terrorists.

Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, The, on behalf of severals NGOs¹, said that supposedly soft interventions to prevent violent extremism were premised on assumptions of the vulnerabilities of particular groups to follow a pathway of radicalisation to committing radical acts that was not evidence-based. Americans for Human Rights and Democracy in Bahrain asked the panellists for their evaluations on the impact of Wahabism on the spread of extremism in Gulf countries and the Middle East? Amnesty International highlighted the discriminatory application of measures to prevent violent extremism and the abuse of such measures by some governments to target human rights defenders, environmental activists, activists from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender communities, and political opponents.

Responses by the Moderator and the Panellists

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, asked the panellists how they envisioned reconciling good intentions with good actions and responsible results.

NAZILA GHANEA, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, said that any measure in the hands of any State already abusing human rights would always be dangerous. The best measure of whether any measures to prevent violent extremism could be effective was to look at civil society. If the measures taken were respectful of human rights, they would build up resilience in youth in countering extremism. If not, the State that was already violating human rights was authorised to violate them further.

GASTÓN GARATEA, Professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and former Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty, said that concrete and real education had to be articulated with the government and civil society. The two had to work together so they could cover the points advanced by partisans of violent extremism.

MEHREEN FAROOQ, Senior Fellow at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, said that videos and counter-messages could be developed, but at the core of the solution was community involvement. Many violent extremist organizations shared the same ideology, and it was important for civil society organizations to collaborate more. Sharing lessons learned would be very important in that regard, and the wheel did not need to be reinvented. The international community should continue to build up the capacity of civil society organizations. Also, grassroots organizations to partner with should be identified outside of capital cities. Community policing guidelines ought to be specified and diffused. Many of the values could not be taught, but they had to be experienced, which was why it was important to promote cultural exchanges from early on.

AHMED ABBADI, Secretary-General of La Rabita Mohammadia des Oulemas, said that small countries could also use the expertise of the more experienced, larger countries. There had to be an engagement of organizations included in human rights monitoring and reporting. That work needed to be accompanied by non-governmental organizations. It had been stipulated that there was a need for lawyers specialized in those areas. There was a need to build up expertise in the field of communications, in order to strengthen responses and provide alternative narratives and discourses. The discourse for children needed to be colourful, comprehensible and done in a pedagogical manner, so that their right to live healthy and sane childhoods would not be compromised. Expertise from Hollywood studios and the Silicon Valley could be used.

NAZILA GHANEA, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, said that pluralism, diversity and respect for others could be brought up with young children, but not in a security context. A security framework against children should not be used.

Discussion

Croatia noted that the measures to fight violent extremism required further delineation from the phenomenon of terrorism, and there needed to be a clear diversification of measures and conditions to tackle each of them. Austria stated that full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms could never be understood to stand in the way of effective action to counter violent extremism. Those two concepts were mutually reinforcing. Australia strongly supported the United Nations Secretary-General’s Plan of Action and the Plan’s call for Member States to develop national and regional plans for the prevention of violent extremism in order to address national conditions. Singapore noted that countries had to adopt a long-term view to prevent extremism from taking root. Otherwise, they had to spend much time and effort to rebuild confidence, trust and community relations. Tunisia underlined that the prevention of violent extremism necessitated a comprehensive approach based on human rights, culture and education, as well as a focus on development. Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that in recent years it had been a victim of both domestic and international terrorism, noting that it treated combatting violent terrorism very seriously and in line with applicable human rights provisions. To that end, it had adopted legislation to criminalize joining foreign wars.

China said that in recent years, global terrorist forces had instigated violent extremism, causing confrontation, adding that violent extremism was an important root cause for terrorism. Russian Federation welcomed heightened international attention to combatting violent extremism which was important as it was related to combatting terrorism, and noted States’ growing understanding that terrorism could not just be combatted militarily. Brazil said not all violent extreme acts were terrorism, recalled challenges posed by the concept, and noted that measures to combat violent extremism should not be used for purposes other than the promotion of peace. Indonesia said it had implemented a two-pronged national strategy of a hard and a soft approach, the latter exemplified by de-radicalization and counter-radicalization programmes. Iran said that ever-growing extremism, terrorism, violent extremism and “Takfiri mentality” were of great concern for the international community and asked the panellists how violent extremism could be prevented through education while terrorist groups such as ISIS were very technologically sophisticated? Republic of Korea spoke about “push factors” driving individuals to violent extremism, such as poverty, and “pull factors” which were features used to recruit people to violent extremism.

Association Miraisme International said that education in human rights, as a way to internationalize the human dignity of others, should be an important part of school curricula. Educational programmes should cover histories and philosophies of different communities.
World Jewish Congress said that Jews worldwide were bearing much of the brunt of violent extremism. Ideologies promoting violent extremism did not stop there as they threatened all that was different. Open dialogue and education reduced social tensions. Global Network for Rights and Development stated that the absence of education was the main factor of extremism, and education was therefore the key for a peaceful livelihood. States and non-State actors should introduce more programmes of integration. Council of Europe believed that the prevention of violent extremism and radicalization was at the heart of the May 2015 Action Plan of the Council of Europe. A campaign against hate speech, both online and offline, was underway. Malaysia noted that the absence of a clear definition of violent extremism at the international level complicated international cooperation in that regard. Preventing violent extremism had to be comprehensive and sustained, and should highlight positive values. Kyrgyzstan stated that the nature of extremist threats in today’s world was significantly changing. Extremism should be dealt with through a comprehensive approach, including by taking preventive measures.

Sierra Leone believed that States had a responsibility to address the root causes of violent extremism through public awareness, counselling, and early detection of radicalization. States should also prosecute those responsible for radicalizing others. Senegal said that military and security measures to combat violent extremism had to be accompanied with efforts to improve good governance, human rights protection and perspectives for the youth. Pakistan said that there was hardly a family in Pakistan that had not been affected by terrorism, and presented measures, including military and education efforts, undertaken by Pakistan to combat this phenomenon. Ethiopia said that States should counter violent extremism while respecting the rule of law, and should refrain from becoming safe havens, fund raisers or spaces for propaganda for violent extremism. Morocco said that the Rabat Plan of Action was an excellent tool to mobilize media, activists, scholars and religious leaders towards preventing extremism. Turkey said that law enforcement and security measures strictly based on the rule of law remained effective tools to address violent extremism, along with family support, religious counselling, educational and employment incentives, and development policies.

Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, in a joint statement with, Women's Federation for World Peace International; and Al-Hakim Foundation, welcomed the initiatives of Morocco for an Islam of tolerance, adding that it was essential that those working for peace all had to be fully involved in the search for a lasting solution.


Concluding Remarks

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, asked the panellists for their responses to the question of when one was talking about violent extremism, was one talking about the same thing as terrorism?

GASTÓN GARATEA, Professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and former Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty, said he believed it was not the same thing but they were very close relatives. The aim of extremism was oftentimes vengeance and breaking the state of affairs or status quo. Terrorism focused on a system, it was itself a system.

MEHREEN FAROOQ, Senior Fellow at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, said that programmes countering violent extremism mitigated risk factors but counter-terrorism programmes focused on stopping individuals once they were already radicalised. More civil society needed to be integrated into programmes to counter violent extremism. Progress would take time, for some States it would require a cultural paradigm shift. For others, it might require expanding to soft power initiatives.

NAZILA GHANEA, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, said that the international community had been in the same situation at an earlier stage, noting that the discussion about minorities began before there was a definition of minorities. A working definition did have to emerge, but wherever the working definition came from, its bedrock had to be human rights and it needed to be distinguished from terrorism. If the international community wanted it to be in synch with human rights, a distinction would have to be made between thoughts and actions.

AHMED ABBADI, Secretary-General of La Rabita Mohammadia des Oulemas, said that the term “violent extremism” was first used to distinguish it from “extremism”. When it generated actions and brutality, extremism would turn into violent extremism. States had to train their security forces – police and the Army – on how to deal with violent extremism without violating human rights. Interventions needed to be commensurate and take into consideration the protection of human rights. Mr. Abbadi believed that capacities needed to be built up so that the rights spelled out in various conventions could be upheld. Trainers needed to be trained, all with the view of demystifying the issue of human rights.

NAZILA GHANEA, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group and Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, stated that, first and foremost, States themselves should not be violating the rights of journalists and instead should ensure a safe framework for their work. Violent extremism called for collaboration not only at the international level, but also among different actors within countries.

MEHREEN FAROOQ, Senior Fellow at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education, said that in very religiously observant countries, such as Afghanistan, religion was not necessarily the primary driver of radicalization. More research was needed to identify the true causes of radicalization. Funding for grassroots civil society had been limited, which ought to be changed.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO SOTO, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Geneva and panel moderator, said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would prepare a separate report to the thirty-third session of the Council on the best practices and lessons learned on how protecting and promoting human rights contributed to preventing and countering violent extremism. Member States were encouraged to submit their inputs by April 2016.

¹Joint statement: Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, The,; American Civil Liberties Union; CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation; Association for Progressive Communications; International Center for Not-for-Profit Law; International Humanist and Ethical Union; Human Rights Watch; Center for Inquiry; International Federation for Human Rights Leagues; and Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC16/039E