On Oct. 30, the Fourth Freedom Forum and Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame released Friend Not Foe: Civil Society and the Struggle Against Violent Extremism. The report urges countries, including the United States, to move away from counterterrorism measures (CTMs) that harm nonprofits and do not improve security. The report also calls on nonprofits to be more proactive in countering misinformation and shaping policy alternatives. According to the report, civil society groups "help to advance international norms and treaties on behalf of an array of important causes, including human rights, the environment, development of democratic governance, and conflict prevention." They are an essential piece of the complex web of connections that bridge nations, foster healthy relationships, and aim to ease current and future tensions that plague many parts of the world. As a result, the report says the U.S. must lead the world in formulating CTMs that do not curtail the civil liberties and human rights of the very groups that can curtail extremism.

The report cites adverse effects CTMs have on civil society, including the use of national security as a pretense to limit dissent or carry out human rights abuses. It notes that "In Sri Lanka, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories, Somalia and other zones of conflict, peace and reconciliation groups are sometimes seen by governments as political adversaries…." In the U.S., the PATRIOT Act has permitted draconian policies that stifle humanitarian aid, advocacy, and the legal process. In addition, the report says the U.S. Department of Treasury's Risk Matrix for charities unfairly targets groups that assist with creating social, economic, or environmental changes in conflict zones. Instead of embracing these groups as the "means of overcoming conditions conducive to violent extremism," the federal government and other institutions have singled these organizations out "as high risk and … more difficult to fund."

According to the report, American policy on combating terrorism should acknowledge that nonprofit groups often work in the world's humanitarian disaster zones. It recommends that governments have "sunset clauses in all counterterrorism and emergency security measures" and work with civil society groups in "the process of reviewing and assessing the effectiveness and impacts of such measures before they are reenacted." Standards for such assessment are available in a report, Defending Civil Society, by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. These criteria are based on widely accepted legal conventions and include:

• The right to entry, defined as the freedom to associate and form organizations;
• The right to operate without unwanted state interference;
• The right to free expression;
• The right to communicate and cooperate freely, internally and externally;
• The right to seek and secure resources; and
• The right to have these freedoms protected by the state.

Another resource for reform cited in the report is the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy embraced by the United Nations General Assembly in 2006, which recommends protecting human rights and sustainable development as a means of thwarting terrorism. This expands counterterrorism strategy beyond a strictly military paradigm to acknowledge the complex challenges terrorism poses. According to the report, "military means alone cannot deter a shadowy force of nonstate fighters," and defeating terrorist threats requires "a range of complex political, economic and social responses that go beyond and in many cases are incompatible with the use of armed force."

Although the report is critical of many governmental approaches to fighting terrorism, it also says that "civil society groups and the development community generally have not engaged sufficiently in the public debate over counterterrorism strategy and the proper approach to overcoming violent extremism … It is imperative that civil society groups mobilize to protect their operational space and advocate more effectively on behalf of rights based development." To accomplish this goal, the report suggests an international network that will:

• Agree on a set of principles and policy recommendations;
• Develop a coordinated advocacy campaign for reforms;
• Reframe the debate, rebut false claims, and raise public awareness of the problem; and
• Support reasonable transparency and accountability measures.