By Henry Campbell and John Coyne
Youth radicalization and its connection to political violence and terrorism is an urgent concern. Despite consistent warnings from intelligence and law enforcement agencies in Australia and globally, public discussion around this issue often falls short. We need to understand why it persists and how to disrupt it before it escalates.
Australian Security Intelligence Organization said on 6 December that about 20 percent of its priority counterterrorism cases involved minors. Since 2017, ASIO and the AFP has investigated 35 young Australians for violent extremism, some as young as 12.
Young adults are also a risk factor, as illustrated this month by the apparently ideologically motivated killing of a healthcare CEO in the US. To address their radicalization, policymakers must grapple with agency: radicalized people are not just vulnerable and manipulated; political violence can be their response to both real and perceived grievances.
A Five Eyes report issued this month highlights disturbing case studies of youth involvement in violent extremism across Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. These case studies offer valuable insights but focus on social media. While digital environments are important, we risk overshadowing the deeper psychological, societal and cultural factors that underlie youth radicalization.
We must determine what differentiates those merely exposed to extremist content and those who are radicalized by it. Online interactions may exacerbate radicalization but are not the sole factor.
Multi-faceted vulnerabilities are part of the answer. For example, individuals who feel alienated, unsupported or marginalized may find a sense of belonging or purpose in extremist ideologies. Understanding complex factors, and their role in the cycle of radicalization, is necessary to disrupt the cycle.
We must focus on understanding why certain individuals, particularly young people, are drawn to extremist ideologies in the first place. This includes understanding the uncomfortable issue of youth agency in radicalization.
Agency is absent from the Five Eyes report and much of public discussion. We cannot view radicalized young people only as vulnerable victims. We must consider their conscious participation as an attempt to resolve real or perceived grievances. While agency is tricky to assess in the case of radicalized minors, it is particularly relevant in assessing cases of adult young persons, aged 18 to 25. This demographic is more likely to be politically aware and may be motivated to violent extremism due to a radical ideology or political grievance.
