Australia should learn from European programs that effectively steer young people away from Islamic extremism and stop them becoming "foreign fighters", a leading terrorism expert says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In a new paper for the Lowy Institute, Andrew Zammit from Monash University's Global Terrorism Research Centre says programs in Germany and Denmark in particular could be adapted to Australia's needs as it faces the threat of extremists travelling to Syria and Iraq.
Mr Zammit also warns that the Abbott government's programs to counter violent extremism "are not off to the strongest of starts" because of Tony Abbott's recent claim that Muslim leaders were not doing enough to speak out against extremism, as well as the government's "poor consultation" over recent national security laws.
"Australia can learn valuable lessons from European countries which have more experience in CVE (countering violent extremism) and are already using such measures to address the current foreign fighter threat."
The Abbott government last year announced a $630 million funding boost to fight terrorism, mostly to bolster intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
While it includes $13.4 million for a tailored intervention program to counter extremism and $21.7 million to combat online propaganda by radical groups, the government has come under fire from prominent Muslims and also from the NSW government for not devoting enough effort to this so-called soft side of countering extremism.
Mr Zammit singles out a German program called Hayat – Arabic for "life" – which is aimed not at radicalised people themselves but at their families and close friends, aiming to help them steer their loved one away from violence.
It has developed "a strong international reputation", Mr Zammit writes, and is being adopted by other countries including Britain and Canada.
Another prominent program is Denmark's "Aarhus model" after the country's second largest city, which provides medical treatment, psychological support, and even employment and housing assistance, to radicalised people willing to turn their lives around.
It has been criticised in Denmark as "soft and naïve", Mr Zammit writes, yet it is supported by senior police. Mr Zammit quotes one officer, Superintendent Allan Aarslev, as saying: "What's easy ... is to pass tough new laws. Harder is to go through a real process with individuals ... We don't do this out of political conviction; we do it because we think it works."
However these programs would need to be "carefully calibrated" to Australia's own needs, he stresses.
Germany's program was modelled on a long-running and successful project to steer people away from neo-Nazism and therefore is built on "institutional experience" that Australia does not have.
And the Danish program would likely have to be adjusted to avoid being "rejected by the (Australian) public as far too lenient", he says.
Mr Zammit also writes that community-driven programs are often the most successful but are "struggling to operate with little to no support".
"Moreover, the poor consultation by the government with the Muslim community on much of Australia's new counter-terrorism legislation as well as the Prime Minister's claim that Muslim leaders are not doing enough to speak out against radical ideas have undermined the prospects for effective co-operation," he says.
