Live

Why Extremism Is Everyone’s Problem

Violent extremism is not an abstract concept. Around the world, radical groups tailor their narratives to local realities — from unemployment to political exclusion — making them harder to detect and fight through traditional military means.

As co-chair of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), the EU has long promoted a multilateral approach to countering extremism. The message is clear: no country or region can tackle this alone. What’s needed is strong cooperation, trust, and local engagement.

GCERF – Investing in People Before Violence Begins

One of the EU’s key instruments in this effort is the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) — the world’s only fund entirely dedicated to preventing violent extremism.

The logic is simple: instead of reacting after extremist ideas take root, it’s smarter to support local initiatives early — strengthening communities before they become vulnerable.

Unlike top-down aid programs, GCERF works directly with grassroots organizations that best understand their communities’ needs. They run education projects, social inclusion activities, and psychosocial support programs to reduce vulnerability to radicalization.

In its first ten years, GCERF has reached over 4 million people considered at risk of radicalization — at an average cost of just 30 dollars per person. That raises an important question: if prevention is this cost-effective, why aren’t such programs more widespread globally?

The EU: A Major Donor and Global Leader

By 2024, the EU had become the largest single donor to GCERF. During the donor conference in New York, held alongside the UN General Assembly, the EU pledged an additional €10 million. Beyond the numbers, this was a symbolic act — a clear sign that Brussels sees prevention as a core pillar of its security policy, not a side project.

Of course, one might ask: can funding of this scale truly change the dynamics of global extremism? €10 million is a meaningful sum, but compared with the EU’s overall military and security spending, it’s still a fraction.

From Education to Reintegration – What the Funds Support

The new EU contribution will support several key areas:

1. Education and Employment for Youth. Young people are the most at risk of falling for extremist narratives — especially when they lack prospects. Creating opportunities for work and learning builds resilience and purpose.

2. Psychosocial Support and Social Cohesion. These “soft” measures are often overlooked in counterterrorism policies focused on hard security. But alienation and hopelessness are powerful fuels for extremism — and healing communities can cut off that oxygen.

3. Empowering Local Voices. In today’s digital world, extremist propaganda spreads fast online. GCERF invests in credible, trusted local voices — people who can challenge hate narratives both on the internet and in their own neighborhoods.

4. Reintegration and Rehabilitation. Helping former fighters and their families return to society is one of the hardest, yet most effective, parts of prevention. Examples from the Western Balkans and Iraq show that reintegration can not only prevent renewed violence but also restore human dignity.

The Challenges: Is Prevention Enough?

While investing in communities sounds promising, it comes with challenges.

First, prevention is hard to measure. The results often appear years later, and you can’t easily count “how many people didn’t become extremists.” This makes transparency and accountability difficult.

Second, political and security stability is crucial. In fragile states like Iraq, community projects can collapse if conflict escalates. Can you really build resilience where the state barely functions?

Third, scale matters. Four million people reached in a decade is significant — but millions more remain at risk. Global radicalization hot spots, from the Sahel to South Asia, involve tens of millions of vulnerable individuals.

Prevention as a Complement, Not a Substitute

The EU stresses that funding GCERF is meant to complement, not replace, traditional counterterrorism tools. Education and empowerment can’t substitute for law enforcement — but they can address the root causes that security measures alone never will.

The real challenge lies in balance: how to ensure that prevention is not treated as a “soft extra,” but as an equal pillar of security policy. Because building peace is not just about stopping violence — it’s about giving people a reason not to choose it in the first place.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article