BEYOND THE PARIS ATTACKS

Violent road lies ahead and there is little to negotiate

Some, including this writer, believe that last Friday’s outrageous terrorist attacks were part of a general assault aimed at triggering a massive reaction from both the public and governments against Muslims living in the EU and the US. The objective is to push more Muslims living in Europe into the ranks of ISIS. And that the timing and targeting of this particular incident had to do with the fact that, in three weeks, regional elections will take place in France.

There is a strong chance that Marine Le Pen’s right-wing Front National, which holds strong anti-immigrant and anti-Islam views, will be favoured by the voters’ reaction to what happened in Paris. Her immediate response to the terrorist attack was a reiteration of her call for much stricter immigration laws and an abandonment of the Schengen agreements which allow people to circulate within most of the EU freely, without border controls. Curiously, her speech was more moderate than what could have been expected. The Front National’s messages were there, but the rhetoric was acceptably democratic especially in light of the circumstances.

The message of the rest of the relevant political leaders was adequate and — above all — responsible. It promised that justice will fall on the perpetrators but it also remarked the commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. A cynic would define them as politically correct. But a realist would note that in some circumstances — and this is one of them — political correctness, as trite as it may sound, is the only available option. A couple of wrong phrases in the heat of a speech delivered in understandable anger could trigger reactions from the general public which would only make matters worse. And would play into the hands of the terrorists.

However, beyond the statements, last Friday’s events are telling us that the EU, the US, and most of the world are facing a very serious problem which is totally different from the terrorist threats of the past. And that, in order to analyze its nature, it might be necessary to look again at less idealistic views of the world in which we live.

This means accepting that humanistic philosophy, which suggests a weakening of religious dogmatism as a source of conflict, might be a good wish rather than an adequate description of today’s world.

Back in the early 1990s, the Soviet bloc had disappeared and many believed that there was a conflict-free future ahead. There were some strongly discordant voices challenging this view. Perhaps the most memorable was that of Samuel Huntington, a political scientist who published an article with a disturbing title: The Clash of Civilizations.

His view was that conflict between ideological blocs and/or nation states would be replaced by a clash of civilizations which was destined to dominate global politics. And he offered detailed descriptions of the main cultures and their points of conflict.

His remarks on Islam are worth revisiting in view of the current situation. Huntington wrote: “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the 11th to the 13th century, the crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the 14th to the 17th century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, as Ottoman power declined, Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.”

True, the conflict became much more moderate, but it never disappeared entirely. It is about a compound of issues which range from views about God and religion to everyday life. A perhaps minor but nevertheless significant example of this clash, which has to do precisely with France is that Muslim females were banned, in 2004, from wearing their burqas in French public schools.

In other words: French commitment to a non-religious republic against ISIS’ commitment to fundamentalist religious rules.

Noticeably, with a few exceptions, like Palestine and Israel, the conflict transcends the issue of nation states. Israelis can negotiate with groups fighting for an independent Palestinian state. Ironically, even if they are confronting through violence, they can nevertheless negotiate with each other or through third parties. They have something to negotiate about which is quite concrete. Territory and independence. They might not reach an agreement, but both sides have clear final objectives and are mutually aware of them.

By contrast, ISIS’ demands which include elements like “death to all the infidels” are not negotiable. A definitely violent road ahead.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD