48. 但是，特别报告员指出，这种做法存在若干固有风险。防止和打击暴力极端主义的视角是以安全为焦点的视角。新的行动要务和概念借由防止和打击暴力极端主义的说法悄然渗入了制度层面。根据毒品和犯罪问题办公室的定义，暴力极端主义是指接受通过暴力手段实现通常为社会、种族、宗教和(或)政治性目标的意识形态。毒品和犯罪问题办公室认为，暴力极端主义特指会导致实施恐怖主义行径的行为和思想。96 教科文组织认为，暴力极端主义是指支持或使用暴力以实现意识形态、宗教或政治目标的人所坚持的信仰和行动，可能包括恐怖主义和其他形式的出于政治动机的暴力。97 教科文组织指出，面对这种由排他性的世界观和对信仰的错误解释所滋生的威胁，再加上仇恨和不容忍因素的煽动，“硬实力”不足以对抗。98 这种做法导致联合国在人权、发展、法治和教育等核心问题上与安全问题相提并论。重要的是，这导致联合国采取的没有偏见和公正合法的行动被潜在的歧视性、排他性和充满政治色彩的概念所玷污，化这种行动为“联合国的行动，被重要的安全问题驱动的反极端主义政策所污染”。这会对许多方案产生严重后果，影响民间社会合作伙伴的选择(排斥)、筹资提案的制定和推介方式(附加安全问题)，也会在方案实施地点和对受援者的看法方面给受援者造成影响(污名化)。用“整个联合国”、“弥合鸿沟”或“打破部门分割”的办法对待这一问题，将安全放在不亚于发展、人权和人道主义行动的位置，可能相当于将联合国的所有行动都附加安全问题。
48. The Special Rapporteur notes several inherent risks with that approach however. The lens of preventing and countering violent extremism is a security-focused lens. Through the language of preventing and countering violent extremism, new operational imperatives and concepts have crept in institutionally. UNODC defines violent extremism as an ideology which accepts the use of violence for the pursuit of goals that are generally social, racial, religious and/or political in nature. It notes that violent extremism specifically refers to behaviour and thinking which can lead to the commission of acts of terrorism.96 UNESCO refers to the beliefs and actions of people who support or use violence to achieve ideological, religious or political goals, which can include terrorism and other forms of politically motivated violence.97 It states that “hard power” is not enough to counter threats drawing on an exclusive world vision and building on false interpretations of faith, fuelled by hatred and intolerance.98 Such an approach leads to United Nations action on core issues – human rights, development, the rule of law and education – that is securitized. Importantly, it leads to unbiased and impartial legitimate action by the United Nations being tainted by potentially discriminatory, exclusionary and politically charged concepts, rendering such action “United Nations action, infected by overlying security-driven policies on extremism”. It can have severe consequences on many programmes, affecting the choice of civil society partners (exclusion), the way in which funding proposals are designed and pitched (securitization) and the beneficiaries of such programmes, both in terms of where the programmes are implemented and how recipients are viewed (stigmatization). An “all of United Nations”, “bridge the divide” or “break the silos” approach to the question, in which security is placed on an equal, if not higher, footing than development, human rights and humanitarian action may amount to the securitization of all United Nations action.