Ever since the terrorist attacks in January on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, Parisians knew that barbarism lurked around the corner and that it would strike again. However, it is one thing to know something, to anticipate it, and another to be confronted with the grim reality. On Friday night last week, reality struck us with a vengeance. We are at war. It would be wrong — even dangerous — not to admit it. To win will require clarity, unity and firmness.
Clarity of analysis is what we now need the most. We barely know our enemy, except for the intensity of his hatred and the depth of his cruelty. To understand his strategy, we must recognize him for what he is: An intelligent — and, in his own way, rational — adversary. For too long, we have despised and underestimated him. It is urgent that we now change course.
In the last few weeks, the Islamic State’s (IS) strategy of terror has brought death to the streets of Ankara, Beirut and Paris, and to the skies over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The identity of the victims leaves no doubt about the message. “Kurds, Russians, Lebanese Shiite, French: You attack us, so we will kill you.”
The timing of the attacks is as revealing as the targets’ nationality. The more the Islamic State is defeated on the ground and loses control of territory in Syria and Iraq, the more it is tempted to externalize the war to deter further intervention. The synchronized attacks in Paris, for example, coincided with the Islamic State’s loss of the Iraqi city of Sinjar.
Of course, the terrorist cell that struck Paris was not created in the wake of the Islamic State’s recent battlefield losses. It was already in place, waiting to be activated, as others might be. That demonstrates the group’s tactical flexibility, not to mention the availability of people willing to commit suicide.
If the Islamic State chose this time, in Paris, to target people who are not satirists, police officers, or Jews, it is precisely because their “ordinariness” left them unprotected. This time, the attackers chose “quantity” over “quality,” if one might be pardoned for such a crude formulation. The goal was to kill as many people as possible.
This strategy is possible because the territory controlled by the Islamic State provides a sanctuary and training ground. The self-proclaimed caliphate’s territories represent for the group what Taliban-controlled Afghanistan meant for al-Qaeda in the 1990s.
It is imperative to regain control of this territory. Destroying the Islamic State’s “provinces” in Libya, Sinai and elsewhere must become the number one priority of the international community.
Beyond analytical clarity, there is a need for unity, beginning in France, where citizens would reject their political class were its members to continue to behave divisively at such an obvious historical turning point.
Unity must also be achieved within Europe. We are repeatedly told that Europe is in the midst of an identity crisis, in need of some new project. Well, now Europe has found one. To be European means to confront together the scourge of barbarism, to defend our values, our way of life and our way of living together, despite our differences.
Unity is also required of the Western world as a whole. US President Barack Obama’s statement after the Paris attacks demonstrates that what unites Europe and the US is much more significant than what divides us. We are in the same boat, faced with the same enemy. This sense of unity must go beyond the European and Western world, because the Islamic State threatens nations such as Iran and Russia, not to mention Turkey, as much — if not more — than it does the West.
Of course, we must be realists. Our alliance of circumstance with these nations cannot not overcome all problems between them and us. So, beyond clarity and unity, we need firmness, both in confronting the threat of the Islamic State and in defending our values, especially adherence to the rule of law.
The Islamic State expects from us a combination of cowardice and overreaction. Its ultimate ambition is to provoke a clash of civilizations between the West and the Muslim world. We must not fall prey to that strategy.
However, clarity comes first. When Paris is attacked as it was last Friday, one must speak of war. No one wants to repeat the errors of the US under former president George W Bush; but to use those errors as an alibi to avoid confronting the world as it is would merely be an error of a different sort. Europe’s response must be tough, but it must not deviate from the rule of law. We are, after all, engaged in a political battle with the Islamic State, one in which our love of life must prevail over their love of death.
Dominique Moisi is senior adviser at the French Institute for International Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under