A Deradicalization Program Seen from the Inside
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Études de l’Ifri Focus stratégique 102 bis ONCE A JIHADIST, ALWAYS A JIHADIST? A Deradicalization Program Seen from the Inside Marc HECKER February 2021 Security Studies Center The French Institute of International Relations (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 979-10-373-0291-5 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2021 How to cite this publication: Marc Hecker, “Once a Jihadist, Always a Jihadist? A Deradicalization Program Seen from the Inside”, Focus stratégique, No. 102 bis, Ifri, February 2021. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0) 1 40 61 60 00 – Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Focus stratégique Resolving today’s security problems requires an integrated approach. Analysis must be cross-cutting and consider the regional and global dimensions of problems, their technological and military aspects, as well as their media linkages and broader human consequences. It must also strive to understand the far reaching and complex dynamics of military transformation, international terrorism or post-conflict stabilization. Through the “Focus stratégique” series Ifri’s Security Studies Center aims to do so, offering new perspectives on the major international security issues in the world today. Bringing together researchers from the Security Studies Center and outside experts, the “Focus stratégique” alternates general works with the more specialized analysis carried out by the team of the Defense Research Unit (LRD or Laboratoire de Recherche sur la Défense). Author Marc Hecker is director of research and communications at the Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri, French Institute of International Relations), research fellow at the Centre des études de sécurité (Security Studies Center), and editor-in-chief of Politique étrangère. He holds a PhD in political science and his research is focused on the study of terrorism and radicalization. He taught at Sciences Po for several years. He has published numerous works, including “137 nuances de terrorisme: les djihadistes de France face à la justice” (Focus stratégique, 2018), Intifada française? (Paris: Ellipses, 2012), and War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2009, with Thomas Rid). Editorial Board Chief editor: Élie Tenenbaum Deputy chief editor: Laure de Rochegonde Editorial assistant: Claire Mabille Translator: Cadenza Academic Translations Abstract France has traditionally taken a security-based approach to the fight against terror. It was a latecomer to the field of radicalization prevention and the establishment of disengagement programs aimed at jihadists. It only started to think seriously about the issue in 2013 and its first attempts involved certain irregularities. For that reason, deradicalization suffers from a persistent bad reputation in France. The disengagement and reintegration programs established since 2016—RIVE from 2016 until 2018 and PAIRS, which started in 2018 and is still running—have operated behind closed doors. Discreetness was preferred to overcommunication. This study—the result of a long-term field survey of the staff, participants, and partners of PAIRS—opens the black box of disengagement methods. It offers a nuanced assessment of these initiatives, which, after four years of operations, have produced reassuring results: among the dozens of terrorist offenders who have participated in RIVE and PAIRS in open custody, none have reoffended. Résumé La France a traditionnellement une approche sécuritaire de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Elle s’est engagée tardivement dans la prévention de la radicalisation et la mise en place de programmes de désengagement dédiés aux djihadistes. La réflexion n’a véritablement commencé qu’en 2013 et les premières expériences ont conduit à certaines dérives. Ainsi, la déradicalisation pâtit dans ce pays d’une mauvaise réputation tenace. Les programmes de désengagement et de réinsertion mis en œuvre depuis 2016 – RIVE jusqu’en 2018 puis PAIRS jusqu’à présent – se sont déroulés à l’abri des regards. Le travail discret a été préféré à la communication à outrance. Cette étude – fruit d’une longue enquête de terrain auprès des équipes, bénéficiaires et partenaires de PAIRS – ouvre la boîte noire des méthodes de désengagement. Elle dresse un bilan nuancé de ces dispositifs qui, après quatre ans d’expérimentation, affichent un résultat rassurant : parmi les dizaines de condamnés pour faits de terrorisme suivis par RIVE et PAIRS en milieu ouvert, aucun n’a récidivé. Table of contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 9 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DERADICALIZATION AND DISENGAGEMENT ...................................................................... 13 Different understandings of radicalization processes ........................ 14 What is deradicalization? ...................................................................... 15 Protecting society .................................................................................. 18 Evaluating the risk of terrorist recidivism ........................................... 20 How can a deradicalization program be evaluated? ........................... 23 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FIGHT AGAINST RADICALIZATION IN FRANCE ......................................................................................... 27 Inconclusive experiments ..................................................................... 28 The RIVE program ................................................................................. 31 The end of the RIVE program ............................................................... 34 THE PAIRS INITIATIVE ..................................................................... 37 The legal and institutional framework of PAIRS ................................. 39 Selection criteria for the PAIRS initiative ............................................ 41 PAIRS participants ................................................................................ 44 The PAIRS staff ...................................................................................... 47 The problem of turnover ....................................................................... 50 Starting the program ............................................................................. 54 Support for participants ........................................................................ 58 Assessing the participants’ progress ................................................... 63 PAIRS in its institutional environment ................................................ 67 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 73 Introduction “Once a jihadist, always a jihadist!”1 was how one counterterrorism police officer reacted to the mention of deradicalization programs. Skepticism toward such programs is widespread in the key ministries of state. A senior official in the Ministry of the Interior in Paris told me, “I do not believe in deradicalization”, and described disengagement initiatives as a waste of public money.2 Many researchers and journalists working in the field are also wary of such initiatives. In his book Le jihadisme français, for example, Hugo Micheron talks about “the pipe dream of targeted ‘deradicalization’ methods”.3 David Thomson, author of two acclaimed books on French jihadists in Syria,4 has used the same term: in an interview with Le Figaro, he claimed that “institutional deradicalization is a pipe dream. [...] There is no such thing as state deradicalization. Many people have pretended otherwise for political or mercenary reasons. Hundreds of thousands of euros of public subsidies have been poured in secret into the pockets of out- and-out swindlers”.5 I will come back later to the scandals that have dogged the establishment of a deradicalization—or more precisely disengagement— policy in France. In any case, the authorities have decided that individual instances of wrongdoing should not be used to tarnish the practice of disengagement itself. The Plan national de prévention de la radicalisation (PNPR, National Plan to Prevent Radicalization) of February 2018 confirms the government’s desire to increase the number of “centers for the individualized handling of radicalized persons or those in the process of 1. Informal conversation with a counterterrorism police officer, November 2017. 2. Informal conversation with a senior official at the Ministry of the Interior, June 2019. 3. H. Micheron, Le jihadisme français. Quartiers, Syrie, prisons, Paris: Gallimard, 2020, p. 373. Translator’s note: Our translation. Unless otherwise stated, all translations of cited foreign language material in this report are our own. 4. D. Thomson, Les Français jihadistes, Paris: Les Arènes, 2014 and The Returned: They Left to Wage Jihad, Now They’re Back, trans. G. Flanders, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018 (originally