How Paris Has Changed The War On Terror Forever: New Age Islam’s Selection From Indian Press, 19 November 2015

------

How Paris has changed the war on terror forever

By Jayanth Jacob

Members of special French RAID forces with a police dog and French riot police (CRS) secure the area during an operation in Saint-Denis, near Paris, France. (Reuters)

Fourteen Septembers ago, terror came home to America and soon after, the US declared war on terror. The US and its allies used their military might to go on hot pursuit of the terrorists, flushing them out their hideouts. They went to unfamiliar terrains and hunted down enemies -- both perceived and real. They poured in billions of dollars in the hope of making the world a safer place.

Most countries in the world forged stronger counter-terrorism pacts with others that helped them foil possible terrorist strikes. Since then, the war on terror has stayed a sometimes tortuous course even as US President Barack Obama tried to exit two wars he had inherited from his predecessor in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the attack in Paris last Friday is set to change the way this war will be waged.

Unlike the US, the war on terror is different for Europe, both for governments and the people. The US is protected by two vast oceans. It has got a periphery free of major terrorist outfits. Europe is shorn of the advantage of helpful geography. Countries in Europe are more integrated. The Schengen Visa regime enables a traveler to visit 26 European countries without a passport and immigration controls points at their joint borders, even if France has recently put in place stricter border controls.

Unlike America, there are thousands of Europeans who have either joined the ranks of terrorists or returned home after an association with groups whose potential for mischief is tremendous. France alone is now investigating the whereabouts of 100 such returnees.

France is home to the largest Muslim population in Europe. The continent is also receiving a wave of refugees from the conflict zones including Syria. It is heard again that religion is the opium of the terrorists. Equating any religion with terror, especially Islam, builds a dangerous narrative that would promote both bias and phobia against a community. History is witness to many selective interpretations of religious texts by those who want to use religion as a political tool to further their agenda.

Fighting IS in Syria for long remained a choice of convenience for many countries in Europe, including France, who wanted to oust President Assad in Syria. Make no mistake: That approach doesn’t work any longer. The war on terror and the primacy of national interest in pursuing interventionist policies have illustrated once again that the UN charter is not cast in stone. It would make good sense to jettison cold war rivalry in the war on terror: When Russia is targeted with sanctions for Ukraine, the war on terror in Afghanistan is also hit because it brings about a shortage of spare parts for Afghan security forces fighting the Taliban.

That realisation seems to have sunk in. France and Russia are now busy bombing IS together.

The idea of promoting democracy needs to be balanced. The Arab Spring has shown that removing entrenched rulers created a sudden vacuum, and democracy did not bloom to fill that void. Some of the ousted, like Colonel Gaddafi of Libya, had fought the terrorist outfits. While democracy needs to be an idea to be promoted, it shouldn’t be at the cost of promoting an anarchy that often breeds terrorist ideologies.

Islamic State is no longer the terror outfit the way world understood it when it burst on to the scene in 2013. The strategies that have been employed to counter it haven’t borne fruit yet. For example, choking its funding: Al Qaeda was dependent on wealthy donors for funds, but IS operates oil wells. It actually has territory under its black flag under the name of the Caliphate. An all-out strike on these territories is not a feasible proposition as these areas are home to some 10 million people.

The French ambassador in Delhi, Francois Richier, has said the fight against IS will be long, difficult and global. That it will be. America has empirically become a safer place since 9/11, but the world hasn’t become so for others and for Americans who have become victims of attacks in other parts of the world.

The War on Terror, 2.0, has many more tracks to cover than its precursor.

hindustantimes.com/analysis/how-paris-has-changed-the-war-on-terror-forever/story-Rog4dcHrAZDT4RduPelQ4I.html

--------

After Paris: United with Putin against war on terror?

By Nina L Khrushcheva

Project Syndicate

Nov 18, 2015

photo, Russian President Vladimir Putin reads his notes waiting for British Prime Minister David Cameron for their talks at the G-20 Summit in Antalya. (AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has just vowed to “find and punish” those responsible for using a homemade bomb to bring down a Russian airliner over Egypt in October, killing 224 people. The timing of his announcement, just days after terrorists used suicide bombs and Kalashnikovs to kill 129 people in Paris, is no coincidence. Putin sees an opening to the West, and he wants to take advantage of it. The West should not shut him out.

For weeks, the Russian government seemed to be dithering over the proper response to the plane crash, as if it were worried that the loss of life would be blamed on its decision to intervene in Syria’s civil war. The bloodshed in France, however, has changed the calculus completely, pointing toward the possibility of a rapprochement between Russia and the West. By striking Paris, the Islamic State has turned the Syrian war into a global conflict. And, as Putin’s performance at the G-20 summit in Turkey showed, Russia is firmly in the middle of the fight.

It must be noted that an adversarial relationship with the West was not part of Putin’s original plan. “Russia is part of European culture,” Putin told the BBC in 2000, shortly before his election as President. “I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world. It is hard for me to visualize NATO as an enemy.”

It was only in 2002, after NATO began talks to admit Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, that relations began to sour. As former British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the turning point in his memoirs, “Vladimir later came to believe that the Americans did not give him his due place.”

Putin’s bellicosity was later reinforced by domestic political concerns - a deep recession that made it necessary to channel voters’ anger - and perceived slights, especially at the hands of the United States (President Barack Obama once referred to Putin as “the bored kid in the back of the classroom”). But it was only with Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea in March 2014 that Putin became openly confrontational, portraying his country as the victim of aggression.

The West has “lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed before us a fait accompli,” Putin said in a televised address, shortly after a dubious referendum in Crimea cemented Russia’s control over the region. “This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, and the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders.” Putin has since appeared to be responding to Obama’s description of Russia as merely a “regional power” by attempting to demonstrate the Kremlin’s ability to act globally - most notably by intervening in Syria.

At the G-20 summit in Turkey, however, Putin struck a markedly different tone, extending an open hand: “We proposed cooperation on antiterrorism; unfortunately our partners in the United States in the initial stage responded with a refusal… [But now] it seems to me that everyone is coming around to the realization that we can wage an effective fight only together… If our partners think the time has come to change our relations, then we will welcome that.”

The logic behind Putin’s overtures is clear. Russia has achieved its objective in Ukraine: a frozen conflict that will provide the Kremlin a continuous role in the country’s politics. His goal now is to convince the West to lift its sanctions. As analysts at Stratfor Global Intelligence put it, “Unless the Kremlin is willing to let Russian companies default on their debts or make bigger cuts to their current operations or future investments in the coming years, Moscow will need to convince the Europeans to let at least the harshest sanctions expire.”

The attacks in Paris have provided Putin with the opportunity to present his military operations in Syria as a service to the West, an example of Russia’s willingness to perform the dirty work of attacking the Islamic State in its own territory. And Putin is already making concessions in the diplomatic sphere. At a summit in Vienna on November 15, just two days after the attacks in Paris, Russia and the US seemed to set aside some of their differences on how to end Syria’s civil war, agreeing to a timeline in which a new government would be elected in early 2017.

The US and its European allies have suddenly gained a great deal of leverage over the Kremlin, and they should not be shy about using it. While the West should not be quick to lift its sanctions--the dispute over Crimea is unlikely to be resolved quickly--harnessing the Kremlin’s desire to be recognized as a great, global power is a sound strategy. The frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine can be thawed if Russia is convinced to observe the Minsk Protocol, withdraw its troops from the border, and help facilitate local elections under international standards.

If Putin is willing to create some goodwill by cooperating in Ukraine, the West should consider offering some small concessions in return. Russia’s participation in the battle against the Islamic State--and its return to the rule-abiding ranks of the international community--may be worth the price.

(Nina L. Khrushcheva is Professor of International Affairs and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at The New School and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute. Copyright: Project Syndicate , 2015.)

hindustantimes.com/analysis/after-paris-united-with-putin-against-war-on-terror/story-sCApHMWiLGa9JIOpC9gllJ.html

----------

Defining terror, evolving responses

By Rakesh Sood

"There has been an outpouring of sympathy across the world, reflected in the ‘We are all Parisiens’ vigils." Photo shows people paying their respect to the victims at one the site of the attacks in Paris.

We cannot ignore the fact that it is not history but policies which create beginnings for terrorism. Policies in France have failed both to integrate the minorities and to eliminate terrorism, which requires a global, coordinated response

On Friday, November 13, France faced its 26/11 moment. During three hours of indiscriminate killings that have already claimed 129 lives, the city of lights was shrouded in the darkness of terror. Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility, threatening more such attacks. President Francois Hollande responded by calling it ‘an act of war’ and has vowed to respond ‘without mercy’. A state of emergency has been declared and movement across French borders curtailed.

There has been an outpouring of sympathy across the world, reflected in the ‘We are all Parisiens’ vigils. Monuments across the world were lit up in the French colours. Leaders at the G-20 summit in Turkey observed a minute of solemn silence and pledged (once again) to strengthen and coordinate their efforts to combat terrorism.

Eleven years ago, the world had responded in similar vein in March 2004, when a series of simultaneous bomb blasts on four commuter trains in Madrid killed 191 innocent people. Some key suspects died in an explosion in three weeks later as the police closed in and 21 persons were convicted in the trials that followed. Just a year later, the July 2005 suicide attacks in London on three underground train lines and a bus that led to 56 casualties made the world empathise with the Londoners. Yet, despite statements and declarations, coordinated action has been lacking.

Two earlier warnings for Paris

In the case of Paris, there have been not one but two warnings in recent years. In January this year, two brothers, Cherif and Said Kouachi, had carried out a brazen attack on the Paris offices of a well-known satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, killing a dozen persons, including the editor. The provocation was the cartoons of the Prophet.

Even as the manhunt proceeded, an accomplice, Amedy Coulibaly, held up a Jewish grocery store in another part of town. Eventually, all the three were killed. AQIY (Al Qaeda in Yemen) claimed responsibility for the attacks. Links to Brussels-based networks that had played a role in the acquisition of the weaponry were uncovered during the subsequent investigation.

In March 2012, Mohamed Merah killed French soldiers and Jewish children in three separate incidents in Toulouse and Montauban over a week-long period before the police finally caught up with him and killed him in a shootout. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Merah had been radicalised during his visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was later revealed that the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) had been in touch with him about targeting the Indian Embassy and the Air India office in Paris. It was called a ‘lone wolf attack’ which in hindsight looks like an underestimation of the problem that France faces.

Among the European countries, France has a relatively high immigrant population, drawn largely from its ex-colonies in the Maghreb and Africa. Though religion is not included in the census exercise, it is estimated that the number of Muslims in France would be nearly six million, close to 10 per cent of the overall population.

Alienation of Muslims

Unlike the first generation migrants who focussed single-mindedly on economic betterment, the second generation has been more susceptible to radicalisation, particularly after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Though France opposed the invasion, in the ensuing polarisation between the West and Islam, France was seen to be firmly in the Western camp.

Muscular interventionist policies pursued by Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Mr. Hollande in Libya, Mali and now Syria have also contributed to the alienation of the Muslim youth. Following the 2008 economic crisis, general unemployment in France has risen to 10 per cent but among the Muslims, the unemployment rates are nearly twice that. Given the concentration of Muslim communities in and around certain urban agglomerations (like Paris, Marseilles and Toulouse), networks of mosques and Internet cafes have linked up with jihadi networks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and now Syria. Like in Merah’s case, radicalisation of the Kouachi brothers had also taken place during visits to these countries. Today, more than a thousand French nationals are reported to have gone to Syria as IS recruits, the largest number from any European country, matched perhaps only by the U.K.

France has been proud of its rather strict separation of the Church and the State, first legalised in 1905 and then enshrined in its subsequent Constitutions, as the concept of laicite or secularism. This was further strengthened by the 2004 law which prohibited the ostentatious display of religious symbols in public institutions.

The law alienated sections of the Muslim population as it prohibits the wearing of the hijab which was becoming increasingly visible in French cities, causing concern. However, to be fair, the law was equally applicable to Catholics wearing a large cross, Jews wearing a yarmulke (Jewish skull cap) and Sikh boys wearing a turban in publicly-funded institutions.

The latter was an issue repeteadly taken up by the small Sikh community in France. The issue was also raised by former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh during his visits to France. While the French were sympathetic, they remained staunch defenders of their tradition of laicite.

As evidence of radicalisation grew, new laws were introduced to provide additional powers to the security agencies to monitor and track individuals and organisations engaged with external radical entities even if no criminal act had been committed on French territory. High-profile initiatives have been taken at the level of Prime Minister Manuel Valls to establish dialogue with leading Muslim community leaders and clerics.

Along with laicite, the French have also taken pride in their policy of ‘assimilation’ for integrating the immigrant community. Distinct from the ‘salad bowl’ approach adopted by Anglophone societies, assimilation was aimed at integration of outsiders into the French way of life — the croissant and coffee; the pain au chocolat (chocolate bread) for the children on the weekend; the French language and civilisation; in short la vie francaise.

The idea was that secularism would ensure that the non-Catholic migrant kept his or her faith restricted to the privacy of the home but, in public, felt and behaved like a Frenchman/Frenchwoman and gradually began to take pride in the French way of life. Up till the end of the twentieth century, the French model was widely perceived to be successful and many countries with migrant populations were drawn to it. What also helped was that France had one of the most generous social welfare systems in the West.

Failure of 20th century measures

Yet, all these traditional policy measures have not prevented an alienation of large sections of the population, with its attendant risks of radicalisation. One reason is that these policies operated within national boundaries and failed to take into account the appeal of the ideology of global jihad. Western intervention in traditional societies has led to the dismantling of the state rather than making it more accountable. Al-Qaeda was incubated in the jihad sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the lawless Af-Pak region.

The IS was born in Iraq following the disastrous U.S.-led intervention and has morphed into a Caliphate, aided by Western interventions in Syria and elsewhere, together with the virus of sectarianism within Islam introduced by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Lacking the necessary political space and resources, moderate Muslim leadership has often remained a helpless spectator to this hijacking of Islam. Military action in Syria and Iraq by itself cannot decimate the IS just as drone strikes have not eliminated Al-Qaeda.

Another key reason for the failure is that the people in the West and the international community did not feel the same solidarity when Beirut or Ankara or even Mumbai were subjected to terrorist attacks, though the Mumbai attacks have now become the preferred model adopted by the terrorists. In fact, intelligence agencies in many of these countries had concluded after Mumbai that a simultaneous attack on multiple targets with suicide bombers and gunmen in crowded urban centres was going to be the biggest threat that they needed to prepare against. Yet, effective international coordination has been missing, though, for over a decade, world leaders have pledged to deal with this ‘global threat’ at every summit gathering.

We can continue to seek a primary cause —Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the dubious Arab Springs, the anti-Soviet jihad, the seizing of the Grand Mosque in Makkah in 1979, the Iranian Revolution or the Sykes-Picot pact of 1915. But the fact is that history knows no beginnings; policies create beginnings and policies are made by political leaders. A simple definition of ‘terrorism’ would be a good place to start.

(Rakesh Sood, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation till May 2014, is a former Ambassador to France. E-mail: rakeshsood2001@yahoo.com.)

thehindu.com/opinion/lead/defining-terror-evolving-responses/article7892722.ece

New Age Islam, Islam, Islamic Website, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Grand Mosque, Makkah, Syria, ISIS, Russia, Paris Attack