News & Events Guest Articles

Twenty Years On, the UN’s Counterterrorism Strategy Still Overlooks Cities

Publication Date:

08/09/2026

Content Type:

Guest Articles

Share:

Tags:

9/11City-Led ActionMultilateral Cooperation

— 7 minutes reading time

The following article was originally published by Eric Rosand, Global Chair, Strong Cities Network, in the International Peace Institute’s (IPI) Global Observatory on 8 September 2026

September 2026 marks two significant milestones: the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The former remains the deadliest and most consequential terrorist attack in world history, resulting in the “Global War on Terrorism,” the political, economic, and social impacts of which are still felt around the world. The latter marked the first time all UN member states agreed on the need for and the core elements of a comprehensive, human rights-based, whole-of-society approach to not only countering terrorism but also addressing the conditions that can give rise to it.

A quarter century after September 11, 2001, although the threat landscape has evolved, the vision enshrined in the Strategy—and the numerous national and regional strategies it inspired—remains sound. National governments have used periodic UN reviews to update the Strategy in light of evolving threats, including digital and cyber risks, drones, and gender-based violence, while also recognizing the roles of civil society, media, religious authorities, the private sector, women, and young people in implementation.

However, local governments and their leaders remain consistently overlooked in these reviews and, more broadly, in discussions of how to most effectively prevent and respond to a set of threats that are increasingly localized—and connected to local grievances.

This omission is glaring. Terrorists and violent extremists target cities, exploit local tensions, attack public spaces, and leave mayors and municipal leaders to rebuild traumatized communities as cities in every region of the world continue to absorb the immediate and long-term impacts of terrorist violence.

Why Cities Are Well Placed to Prevent Terrorism

Cities are uniquely well placed to prevent terrorism and hate. They are closest to affected communities, often enjoy trust founded on strong relationships, and have the practical tools to address the “conditions conducive” to terrorism, one of the four pillars of the Strategy. Research by the Strong Cities Network shows that frontline municipal actors—teachers, violence interrupters, librarians, social and youth workers, community organizers, faith leaders, and local service providers—are often the first to see early signs of vulnerability or rising tension.

Municipalities can also convene coalitions across social services, education, mental health, civil society, law enforcement, and faith communities to intervene early and collaboratively. They manage transit hubs, stadiums, parades, markets, schools, places of worship, and major cultural or sporting events, making them indispensable to protecting soft targets and to a robust UN capacity-building agenda that still too often overlooks their role. They can also facilitate interfaith and intercommunal dialogue, counter harmful narratives, prevent hate speech, and support long-term community healing after attacks—all issues reflected in the Strategy.

Moreover, traditional municipal functions related to housing, employment, mental health services, and community mentorship are all critical to the sustainable reintegration of former violent extremist offenders and returning “foreign terrorist fighters.” Cities thus make important contributions to the human rights–based approaches needed to reintegrate these individuals as called for in the Strategy and a number of UN Security Council resolutions.

What Cities Are Already Doing

These contributions are not just theoretical. Across every region, municipalities are advancing the Strategy’s pillars in concrete, locally grounded ways—often more sustainably and humanely than national approaches alone. Four examples illustrate the pattern.

In Uganda, concerned about the risk of spillover violence from the Allied Democratic Forces’ activity across the border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Nansana municipality developed a community-based early-warning and engagement mechanism. This mechanism was adapted from a neighborhood-watch model used in Stellenbosch, South Africa. More than 200 residents and local officials were trained and over 30 neighborhood groups established, combining patrols with awareness raising, community dialogue, and channels for residents to flag concerns to the mayor’s office. The approach has strengthened trust between residents and local authorities, women’s participation in community safety initiatives, and the municipality’s ability to deploy resources that respond to communities’ needs.

In Morocco,  partly in response to rising GenZ dissatisfaction with public services in Moroccan cities, the City of Fes sought different ways to overcome growing trust deficits with its young residents.  Rather than designing a youth program for young people, the city worked with them to design the city’s approach. Across nine consultations, the city engaged more than 90 youth and community representatives before establishing a Communal Youth Council in February 2025. The Council now gives young people, including those from historically marginalized parts of the city who may be more susceptible to radicalization, a formal route to shape municipal decision making. They can also propose youth-led initiatives addressing hate, polarization, and violent extremism, moving youth from “beneficiaries” of programs to prevent violent extremism to actors designing those programs.

In the UK, the mayor of London has established the Shared Endeavour Fund to institutionalize direct municipal investment in grassroots organizations tackling hate, intolerance, extremism, and radicalization. Since 2020, successive funding rounds (totaling more than £3 million) have supported community-led initiatives, including work with young people on identifying and challenging extremist narratives online. Evaluations by the Strong Cities Network have found that these initiatives have strengthened protective factors that have been linked to resilience to radicalization and extremist recruitment.

In Belgium, the city of Mechelen has developed multidisciplinary mechanisms that bring together local police and social workers to identify and support individuals at risk of turning to violent extremism or organized crime, reflecting a recognition of the links between these two phenomena. Small committees share relevant information and jointly develop intervention plans, complemented by regular case meetings involving police, justice, and social service actors to coordinate support and move individuals toward safer environments and opportunities.

How the UN Could Engage Cities

Despite these and many more examples of city-led efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism, UN member states rarely mention municipal contributions when they report on the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Local governments and their leaders are also typically absent from UN debates about how to improve the Strategy’s implementation, even when those discussions cover issues cities routinely address: preventing the conditions conducive to terrorism, protecting soft targets, supporting victims, empowering young people, facilitating intercommunal dialogue, and promoting recovery after attacks.

After nine reviews over two decades, these debates have grown stale and predictable. They tend to focus on the political rather than the practical and on the UN architecture rather than locally led action on the ground and how to replicate and scale what is working. Instead, they repeatedly return to well-trodden, but seemingly intractable, differences among UN member states, including about the UN counterterrorism architecture and resourcing and the scope of what should be considered “terrorism” and thus criminalized. This past July, due in large part to US intransigence, these differences culminated in the UN General Assembly failing to reach consensus on the renewal of the Strategy for the first time in its 20-year history, forcing it to pass the resolution by vote.

As the Strategy enters its third decade, it is time to shift the conversation away from the diplomats in New York and the geopolitical differences that stymie action at UN headquarters and toward the ground, where tangible progress is being made. The above examples of local government action reflect a growing pattern: cities are already doing the work the Strategy calls for. When cities have access to resources, training, and peer learning, they can have a transformative impact on the communities they serve.

This point came up repeatedly at the Strong Cities Sixth Global Summit, held in December 2025. Local leaders from around the world called for greater cooperation with and support from the UN and other global bodies in addressing threats to social cohesion, including terrorism. They called for more tools and capacity building tailored to municipal needs and more opportunities to contribute to discussions at the UN (as well as national-level institutions) about the most effective strategies and practices not just for countering terrorism but also for preventing it in the first place. A key takeaway was that if the UN and its member states are serious about whole-of-society approaches and on-the-ground implementation of global and national strategies, they must hear directly from the governments closest to society.

We know that terrorism is often sparked by local grievances, that its impacts are felt most acutely at the local level, and that the most durable solutions are rooted in communities. As threats become ever more localized, with so many of the “conditions conducive” to terrorism and violent extremism—in the language of the Strategy—linked to local grievances and community dynamics, elevating the role of cities is essential.

The next decade of the Strategy must move beyond the corridors of UN headquarters and seemingly never-ending debates about the UN counterterrorism structure and budgets. Instead, it must give cities and municipalities—whether large or small, urban or rural— recognition, resources, and a seat at the table.

News & EVENTS

Stay up to date with recent news, articles and event reports

News & Events

Looking for something in our Resource Hub?

Or explore all resources

Nominated for Best Animated Short at Cannes

Watch now

Join US

Looking to become a Strong City?

Get in touch