France thought that another Charlie Hebdo would not happen, but it did. It is because the nation believes too much in the mantra of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity' that it was attacked by people who fanatically swear by jihad
Douce France, doux pays de mon enfance…”(Sweet France, sweet country of my childhood). My parents’ generation adored these lyrics of the famous French crooner Charles Trenet; indeed, the country of France must have been sweet in the 1950s and 1960s.
Today things are different. On Saturday night, Paris witnessed the worst terror attack in France’s history: Some 129 people were killed and more than 350 injured.
In his televised intervention, President François Hollande said, “Terrorist attacks of an unprecedented level are underway across the Paris region. It’s a horror.”
He was referring to the attack in the Bataclan, a popular concert hall in Paris. It was packed with 1,000 people for a concert by the US band Eagles of Death Metal. One hour into the concert, some Black-clad gunmen walked from the back of the hall and started calmly, methodically firing at hundreds of screaming concert-goers. A witness later said that one attacker told the crowd, “It’s the fault of Hollande, it’s the fault of your President; he should not have intervened in Syria.”
Already 11 months ago, two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi entered the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with assault rifles, they killed 11 people and injured 11 others. They identified themselves as members of the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda. While leaving, they shot dead a police officer posted outside the building. later in the day, other attacks took place in the Île-de-France region, five more were killed and 11 wounded.
France thought that it would not happen again, but it did. The difference this time was that the attacks did not occur in any symbolic place (as in the case of Charlie Hebdo, a journal which had published cartoons of the Prophet), but in ordinary popular places: Bars, restaurants, concert hall…and the Stade de France, which for many symbolises of the multiracial character of French sport.
How could this happen in FranceIJ How could a nation which invented the mantra of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ and was the first of speak of the equality of all citizens before the law, be so violently attackedIJ
It is precisely because France still believes in this mantra (India too does), that the nation was attacked by people who only fanatically swear by jihad.
Three days before the latest Paris events, Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Home Minister, had announced that a terrorist attack had been thwarted in Toulon, the Naval base in southern France where the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is based.
On October 29, Hakim, a 25-year old resident of the city had been arrested for preparing a terrorist attack targeting some French Naval personnel.
Hakim’s whereabouts were being monitored since some time by the Direction General for Internal Security, the branch of the French intelligence responsible for anti-terrorism. Hakim had recently come into contact with 21-year old Mustapha Mokeddem, one of the Islamic State recruiters also living in Toulon.
A usual scenario followed: Hakim met Mustapha, who convinced him to join thejihad, Hakim then tried to go to Syria. Eventually he was banned to leave French territory and his passport confiscated. Then, encouraged by Mustapha Mokeddem, he decided to ‘act in France’.
When he received two parcels containing some assault weapons and hoods, the police arrested him. He told the French police that the Islamic State propaganda had ordered the new recruits that if they were unable to join the ‘Caliphate’, they should prepare attacks in France. In one video, a Islamic State cadre exhorts his ‘brothers’ to become ‘solitary wolves’ and to fight the ‘infidels’: “Kill them with knives, spit in their face as much as you can” were his injunctions.
The attackers in Paris have probably followed a similar trail. Several Indian ‘experts’ have written that the attacks in Paris were similar to the 26/11 in India. It is not fully correct. In the case of the Paris attack, the terrorists were homegrown (though some lived in nearby Belgium), while in Mumbai, they came from a foreign country with the objective to wage war on India.
Further, in Paris, 7 out 8 blew themselves up, it was not the case in Mumbai. Despite other dissimilarities, the fact remains that terror is terror, wherever it strikes. It is why so many head of States assured France of their support.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was right to say at the Brics countries’ meeting in Turkey: “The scourge of terrorism is growing, and all humankind should unite to fight it. This must be a priority for Brics countries as well.”
As the intelligence agencies struggled to identify the terrorists and the jihadi network used for the attack, the track seems to lead to Belgium which appears to be the hub of the Islamic State in Europe. One of the difficulties is that even seemingly ‘normal’ youth can one day come across a recruiter or a preacher and be converted to radical Islam.
There is no easy solution to stop this and even more worrying is the large amount of arms and ammunition used by the terrorists on Saturday. All this raises critical questions, including the French foreign policy, the question of migrants and the inadequacy of the intelligence sharing within Europe.
Will we see a return to a Europe with bordersIJ It would be very sad indeed! A crucial issue: Should France think of giving a shift to its foreign policy particularly vis-a-vis Russian President Vladimir PutinIJ
An interesting oped in The Nation suggested a reorientation of France’s priorities: “From the vantage point of Riyadh, the great danger emanating from the Middle East is the spread of Iranian influence (through Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad). But from a European and American point of view, the rise of Daesh (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, and its campaign of terror abroad, is the most urgent threat, along with a proliferation of Al Qaeda affiliates. That King Salman is simply mistaken has been amply demonstrated,” wrote the author who further argues that Mr al-Assad must eventually go, “but first things first. The mad bombers and beheaders of Raqqa and Mosul have to be dealt with. Despite its lip service, Saudi Arabia has shown it is unlikely to help much with that battle.”
Obviously, there is no simplistic answer or solution, but November 13 will certainly be remembered as a civilisational turning point. The Indian Prime Minister, when he met other leaders during the G20 gathering, suggested steps “to choke financing, supply of arms and communication channels of terrorists and enhance global cooperation to check use of cyber networks by militant groups.” This is crucial.
Mr Modi added: “The need for a united global effort to combat terrorism has never been more urgent.” Unity amongst the nations of the world (at least to fight terrorism) is certainly a key to defeat the jihadi scourge. But it is not an easy task to achieve.