全球智库信息集成服务系统

When President Donald Trump took office in January, he inherited a military campaign against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliates in the Middle East that had yielded impressive gains in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, in Syria. Since then, the Trump administration has largely continued to rely on President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy of working through partners in the region. However, the strategy to counter the spread of violent extremist ideologies that give rise to terrorism remains a work in progress. Initial steps by the Trump administration give cause for concern.

Countering violent extremism (CVE) is a relatively new field. It was first incorporated into official U.S. national security strategy in 2006.¹ The challenges CVE seeks to address are more diverse and intangible than those targeted by the traditional tools of counterterrorism. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “CVE aims to address the root causes of violent extremism by providing resources to communities to build and sustain local prevention efforts and promote the use of counter-narratives to confront violent extremist messaging online.”² Yet there is little consensus on what constitute the key drivers of extremism. The effectiveness of various interventions also remains a subject of significant debate.

After more than a decade, efforts to counter the ideology of terrorist networks by the United States and its partners have yet to accrue a tangible return on investment. Following the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration linked its global war on terrorism with its freedom agenda, an effort to promote political reform in the Middle East. These efforts failed to produce greater overall stability in the region. Nor did they lead to significant advances in democratic development or major achievements in the battle against violent extremism.

In its first term, the Obama administration launched a new effort to engage the Muslim world through dialogue. But this policy of engagement had little impact on the spread of extremist ideologies that were evolving rapidly with the rise of new Al Qaeda affiliates such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Islamic State. The Obama administration’s reactive posture to the 2011 popular uprisings across the Middle East sent mixed signals to the region about U.S. long-term engagement in the battle of ideas.³

To date, the Trump administration’s approach to violent extremism has been mixed. On the one hand, the president’s campaign and early policies were packed with vilifying rhetoric about Islam and Muslims and included an ill-considered travel ban on the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries. At the same time, the administration has made significant outreach to key leaders in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. However, this outreach has yet to be leveraged into concrete actions designed to reduce extremism.⁴

This report assesses opportunities to strengthen CVE initiatives in the Middle East. It explores the state of current CVE efforts in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Tunisia. These countries are among the United States’ closest partners in the region. Their experiences in CVE to date reflect what remains a deeply contentious and controversial field. Their success going forward in the battle of ideas will determine whether America can turn battlefield success against terrorist organizations into lasting victory.

Additionally, the report argues that the Trump administration should pursue an indirect strategy that seeks to strengthen the capability of U.S. partners in the region to counter violent extremism. The administration should discourage these partners from adopting an overly securitized approach to CVE. It should also channel resources through multilateral initiatives, prioritize the identification of local drivers of violent extremism, and take a more rigorous approach to evaluating the impact of CVE programming. Finally, the administration should refrain from rhetoric and policies that exacerbate the problem instead of contributing to the solution.

To succeed in defeating violent extremism in the Middle East and arrest negative trends, this report recommends that the Trump administration take the following four actions:

1. Make the case to partner countries that repressive policies are counterproductive, and encourage leaders to support basic freedoms and respect for pluralism and inclusivity.
2. Support the adoption of national CVE strategies, prioritize monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and promote research to identify local drivers of violent extremism.
3. Invest in multilateral organizations and initiatives such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), Hedayah, and the Ideological War Center.
4. Abandon Islamophobic and inflammatory rhetoric.

Although President Trump has been in office for little more than six months, three trends detailed below have emerged in his approach to violent extremism in the Middle East.

Overreliance on a securitized approach to CVE

President Trump’s first trip to the Middle East sought to unite regional governments in combating extremist ideology. However, the president also signaled to the region that freedom and human rights, bipartisan tenets of American foreign policy, are no longer a priority for his administration. Indeed, during his visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump remarked, “We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be.”⁵ This statement and others like it were widely perceived as a break from previous American leaders’ efforts to promote American values in the region.

In making this remark, the president signaled that America would no longer hold regional partners accountable for domestic repression. Regional governments have often used securitized and repressive measures to address extremism, including censorship, overly broad counterterrorism laws, and bans on political activity. There is a real danger that such measures will worsen the societal fissures in which extremism thrives.⁶ In addition, the Trump administration’s passive response to this approach risks implicating the United States in Middle Eastern citizens’ grievances against their rulers.

Pluralism and tolerance are essential in the fight against extremism. Some authoritarian governments in the Middle East have responded to the Arab uprisings by closing political space and censoring dissent. In doing so, they have nurtured a landscape in which resentment-driven ideologies face no real intellectual competition. Traditionally, the United States has recognized that political repression helps to fuel the spread of violent extremism. The Obama administration’s CVE strategy addressed this by stating that “leaders who use counter terrorism laws as an excuse to crack down on protestors, journalists, or civil society only deepen the fissures and grievances that can help fuel extremism.”⁷

Disengagement from multilateral CVE institutions and programs

Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal leaves intact most of the State Department’s CVE program funding—in contrast to many other programs the administration proposed to gut.⁸ However, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has not submitted a request for $60 million of 2017 international CVE funding earmarked for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (see the text box below).⁹ If not transferred to the State Department by September 30, the funding will expire and leave a substantial gap in U.S. efforts to work with partners on countering violent extremism.

During a trip to Saudi Arabia in May, President Trump inaugurated the country’s new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, called Etidal in Arabic.¹⁰ The center is slated to conduct counterextremist messaging online and in the media. To date, however, the administration has not demonstrated any substantive support or follow up for the initiative. It is also not clear how Etidal will coordinate with the many existing multilateral institutions already doing this work—many of which are led or funded by the United States (see the text box below).

According to U.S. officials, interventions that they term “made in America” are likely to lose legitimacy among the target population.¹¹ It is therefore essential that the United States coordinate with and work through its allies and partners, especially those in the Muslim world. To this end, the United States has made significant investments in multilateral CVE programs and initiatives, including those described in the text box below. A key goal of these efforts is to develop a shared understanding of violent extremism in the Middle East based on analysis and research.

Promoting CVE policies that embrace pluralism and tolerance through multilateral initiatives was a core concept of the Obama administration’s approach to CVE. In September 2014, President Obama addressed the U.N. General Assembly to urge unified, global participation in CVE. In September 2015, leaders from more than 100 countries, 20 multilateral bodies, and 120 civil societies and private-sector organizations participated in a summit to affirm their commitment to CVE and coordinate preventive strategies.

By contrast, the Trump administration has so far pursued counterextremism on an ad hoc, bilateral basis. This approach selects partners and tactics in response to immediate challenges, rather than addressing underlying structural drivers through existing institutions.

Lingering risks and damage of Islamophobic rhetoric

The Trump administration’s warm relations with Muslim leaders stands in tension with its inflammatory rhetoric and policies against Muslims in the United States. During his first weeks in office, Trump issued an executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, which was widely perceived as a “Muslim ban.”²⁰ In addition, the administration reportedly intends to rebrand countering violent extremism initiatives as “Countering Islamic Extremism” initiatives.²¹ Furthermore, Trump’s statements, and those of some of his key aides, denigrating Muslims and Islam have been widely covered in the Middle East and negatively affect the popular perception of the administration in the region.

The impact of these actions is already being felt. Recent polls show extremely low confidence in the Trump administration among Arab populations. In Jordan, Tunisia, and Lebanon, confidence in President Trump is significantly lower than confidence in President Obama at the end of his term. Additionally, those polled in these countries overwhelmingly described President Trump as “intolerant” and “dangerous.” The majority of survey respondents in Jordan and Lebanon expected that relations between the United States and their countries would get worse during President Trump’s tenure.²² This lack of trust in the administration undermines the United States’ partnerships and legitimacy in the region.

For more than a decade, several key countries in the Middle East have developed programs and adopted new approaches to address the challenges of extremist ideologies. These programs and their impact have varied considerably. Many national-level CVE initiatives in the region suffer from the same set of weaknesses. But their existence demonstrates a recognition in the region of the widespread problem. An overview of these efforts is presented below.

Common themes in regional CVE programs

The proliferation of CVE programs in the region signals increased attention to the challenges, but many of these programs have not produced significant results and are riddled with weaknesses. A new approach should integrate efforts to shore up common weaknesses, as well as build on existing strengths.

Most of the countries reviewed in this report prioritize some form of religious intervention to counter the spread of violent extremist ideology. Additionally, many interventions examined here are state-owned and often restrict political freedoms. In doing so, most undervalue civil society’s potential to complement governmental efforts in CVE. However, there are unique elements in the approach of each country that reflect national experiences and histories.

Two key centers of gravity in the fight against extremist Islam are in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Saudi Arabia is uniquely situated in the broader ideological battles within the different schools of thought in Islam, given that it is the birthplace of the religion and its unique role as “custodian of the two holy mosques” in Mecca and Medina. For centuries, Egyptian religious institutions have heavily influenced Muslim thought and Islamist ideology, with Egypt’s Al-Azhar University serving as one especially influential forum.

The UAE’s involvement in CVE reflects its significant interest in combating extremism, as it defines the term, to ensure stability at home and diminish threats arising from political Islam to both security and stability. The country has initiated a number of new activities in partnership with other countries and international organizations such as the United Nations.

Tunisia has prioritized the role of civil society organizations in the response to violent extremism. Unlike other countries in the region, Tunisia has avoided a totally government-owned and implemented effort. In Morocco, the king enjoys an important degree of religious legitimacy, which lends credibility to the country’s efforts to contain the influence of radical clerics.²³ Jordan has pursued a primarily state-led strategy that includes a mix of counter-messaging and religious scholar training, but it is increasingly working with the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) and international nongovernmental organizations to expand its CVE programs.

The major weaknesses of existing CVE efforts in these countries are described below. An overview of each country’s CVE programs is available in Appendix I.

Absence of comprehensive, integrated national CVE strategies

Few countries in the Middle East have national strategies to guide their efforts to counter violent extremism. Among those examined in this report, only Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco have a national strategy or framework. National CVE strategies are important for several reasons:

1. They provide a public commitment by a state to counter violent extremism.
2. They establish a framework to organize and coordinate efforts.
3. They set out goals and objectives that can be measured and evaluated.
4. They can provide greater opportunity for civil society participation.

Lack of data-based interventions

Few, if any, CVE interventions in the region are grounded in robust data or analysis of the drivers of extremism. Robert McKenzie, a former senior adviser for CVE at the U.S. State Department, concludes that “efforts are mostly designed and funded on the basis of anecdotal evidence, with unknown results.”²⁴ The effectiveness of all existing scholar-led initiatives is uncertain due to the lack of transparency and accessibility of data in these countries.

Most regional countries prioritize religious interventions of some form without a strong analytical basis for understanding the role played by religion. In addition, governments often blame what they term “incorrect” interpretations of Islam without pointing to a commonly agreed upon “correct” interpretation. This results in lack of unity and contradiction—between, for example, religious authorities in Saudi Arabia and Morocco—that undercut CVE efforts.

Lack of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

None of the countries reviewed have in place transparent and independent evaluation mechanisms for their CVE programs. In some cases, this is due to the nature of the intervention. For example, prevention is especially resistant to evaluation, due to the sheer “variety of the programs categorized as prevention” and “trying to prove that a behavior or action has not occurred,” according to the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism study center at the University of Maryland.²⁵ Prevention initiatives take the form of preemptive public relations campaigns aimed at stopping the spread of violent extremism among a target population. Most evaluations of such programs use attitudinal surveys, which are of limited use because of the difficulty of proving a negative.²⁶

However, de-radicalization and disengagement programs should be easier to evaluate. Their objective is for an individual to reject previously held views and withdraw from a violent extremist group if they are a member. These programs involve individual interventions that include counseling, religious debate, and economic and social assistance in the form of job training. Evaluation focuses on recidivism rates based on “whether an individual returns to active participation in an extremist group” or “whether an individual has a prison release revoked or has been rearrested.”²⁷

Overall, none of the programs in these six countries include clear evaluation methods to determine the effectiveness of their interventions, and none provide numbers that can be independently verified. This makes it difficult to identify the strengths of existing CVE initiatives and recreate them on a larger scale.

Increasingly repressive approach to CVE

There is evidence to suggest that some governments in the region have progressively securitized their approach to countering extremism during the first six months of the Trump administration. This includes the use of heavy-handed counterterrorism tactics and political repression. Relying primarily on security interventions risks obscuring other possible drivers of violent extremism, including poor governance structures and a lack of economic opportunities.

Since 2013, Egypt has become increasingly restrictive of NGOs, journalists, activists, and political dissidents. This has escalated in the wake of President Trump’s praise of Egyptian President Fattah el-Sisi. Only a few days after a meeting between the leaders, Sisi passed a law placing stringent restrictions on civil society and aid groups and blocked 21 websites, including several news outlets.²⁸ Some qualitative analysis suggests that these types of measures may add to the grievances that fuel Salafi-jihadi recruitment.²⁹

The relationship between violent extremism and nonviolent Islamism remains controversial. The past several years have seen an increase in regional competition for influence by leaders and Islamist parties.³⁵ States such as Qatar and Turkey back the Muslim Brotherhood, while others—such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt—oppose it. The latter countries have welcomed the Trump administration’s apparent support for a hardline approach to the Muslim Brotherhood.³⁶ Most recently, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt insisted that Doha sever all ties to the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the key demands for lifting the blockade imposed on Qatar in June 2017.³⁷

Jordanian, Tunisian, and Moroccan leaders have not adopted high-profile, heavy-handed measures since Trump took office. But they appear to be turning to securitized measures to tackle extremism. Over the past decade, all three countries have signaled their intent to introduce political reforms and take steps toward democratization. However, reform efforts have subsided in recent years. Jordan has quietly taken steps to close political space, including media censorship and a counterterrorism law that has allegedly been used to silence journalists and citizens critical of the government.³⁸ Tunisia’s parliament recently considered a new security bill criticized by Human Rights Watch on the grounds that it “could criminalize the conduct of journalists, whistleblowers, human rights defenders, and others who criticize the police.”³⁹

Hold countries accountable for repressive policies and encourage leaders to support basic freedoms and respect pluralism and inclusivity

Pluralism and tolerance are essential in the fight against extremism, especially in the Middle East.⁴⁰ As such, the Trump administration should leverage its relationships with regional leaders to push back against repressive policies. The administration should put forward an affirmative agenda that links basic freedoms to the fight against extremism. These issues should also be raised regularly during meetings with regional leaders and through existing strategic dialogues.

Congress should also elevate issues of pluralism and inclusivity, especially where the administration fails to give them the necessary attention. Congress should call for hearings in response to repressive policies and actions that could encourage—rather than counter—violent extremism. This should include hearings on relevant issues identified by the State Department’s annual reports on human rights and religious freedom. If current trends continue, Congress could also consider legislation that prohibits assistance or arms sales to countries that use counterterrorism laws to suppress opposition and minority voices.

Work closely with regional partners to devise and implement comprehensive CVE strategies and good governance programs

Adoption of national CVE strategies

The Trump administration should leverage better relations with regional partners to encourage the development of national