The Week of November 16th, 2015

Special Edition: France and the World React to Attacks in Paris

The ISIS-orchestrated terrorist attacks that struck France this past weekend left more than 130 dead and profoundly affected a nation already struggling with issues of religious tension, immigration, surveillance, and counterterrorism policy. In light of the paradigm-shifting significance of these events, the editors of Politics & Policy have decided to devote all of this week’s Five & One to the aftermath and global ramifications of the Paris attacks.

1. The attacks

This past week was marked by a number of horrific terrorist attacks, for which ISIS claimed responsibility. The largest of these attacks took place last Friday night in Paris, where at least eight people carried out a series of coordinated attacks and killed at least 129 people. The most deadly assault occurred at the famed Bataclan theatre, where three jihadists entered the theater and began firing indiscriminately into the crowd before regrouping and taking over 75 hostages. Police raided the theater after reports the terrorists had begun to kill hostages. Of the 129 killed in Friday’s attacks, 89 were at the Bataclan.

Seven of the eight attackers died in the initial attacks, but the mastermind, Belgian-born Abdelhamid Abaaoud, remained at large over the weekend before his reported death in a series of intense raids by French police in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis, supposedly thwarting another attack in the process. The attacks demonstrated a sophistication not seen since the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, potentially changing how the West views the threat of ISIS and its followers. It seems many of the young men spent time in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, a municipality in Brussels that has been linked to at least four terrorist attacks in the past two years.

While the attacks in Paris have garnered many of the headlines, significant attacks around the world are also worthy of note. One day before the attacks in Paris, a double suicide bombing in Beirut killed at least 43 and wounded some 200 in the worst attack the city has seen in years. The Beirut attacks struck a city and neighborhood that had recently returned to peace and normalcy. The bombings occurred in a neighborhood where Hezbollah, a Shiite group, maintains tight security. ISIS, which proclaims to follow a strict form of Sunni Islam, claimed to target that district to demonstrate their far reach. Mere hours before the attacks that rocked Paris, a suicide bomb during a Shi’ite funeral in Baghdad claimed at least 18 lives; ISIS claimed responsibility, bringing the total lives lost over the weekend to at least 190, not counting the atrocities ISIS surely committed in its own ‘state.’ Although not part of ISIS, the Nigerian group Boko Haram carried out two separate attacks less than 24 hours apart that killed nearly 50 civilians. The group, which pledged allegiance to ISIS earlier this year, was recently named the deadliest terror group in the world, by the execrable virtue of having killed the most people, 6,644 compared to the 6,073 killed by ISIS. In addition, Moscow confirmed recently that the downing of an airplane over the Sinai Peninsula that killed 224 was the work of ISIS.

2. An international coalition

In the wake of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, French President François Hollande has called for a “grand and single coalition” to tackle the threat of ISIS. Having recently also suffered attacks at the hands of the ISIS, the Russian government jumped on the opportunity to aid the French. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the benefits of such a coalition are abundant. Aside from the national outcry that would result from a lackluster response to the recent downing of a Russian jet over the Sinai, Russia has been presented with a unique opportunity to redeem itself in the West. After intense conflict with the EU and NATO over the annexations of Crimea and parts of Ukraine, Russia has become something of a pariah in the eyes of Western powers. It seems that Mr. Putin’s immediate and effective response to the tragedy has begun to ameliorate this problem, with relations evidently thawing between Russia and Western nations. Even Russia and the United States seem to agree on targeting ISIS whereas previously the Russian Air Force made clear to Washington with its airstrikes in Syria on Tuesday – the first time it has done so since the beginning of the bombing campaign in September.

France has also called on the rest of the EU to aid in whatever way they can, invoking a hitherto-unused portion of the Lisbon Treaty (the agreement that created the EU) that can be used to request assistance in the case of an attack on one country’s territory. While still early, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed interest in providing aid, although whether it is military or material is yet to be worked out. As for other nations, it is still too early to tell who will join this ‘coalition.’ ISIS’s neighbors have different and oftentimes conflicting aims in the fight; some view Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s removal from power a prerequisite for peace, while others are more inclined to back the embattled dictator. The same dispute has been aired between the US and Russia, with the former pressing for Mr. Assad’s immediate resignation, while the latter provides him with military support.

The conflicting and highly complex political motivations behind the development of the anti-ISIS alliance may be overcome, turning a disparate collection of European states, Cold War superpowers, and Arab nations into a truly effective fighting force. For now, though, geopolitics still stand in the way of true cooperation.

3. The Schengen Area

In the bloody wake of the November 13th terrorist attacks on Paris, the whole of the Western world stands together, stunned and dismayed. For the first time, ISIS’s heinous regime of violence has reached beyond Iraq and Syria, leaving 129 civilians dead in a city which has typified Western liberal democracy for over a century. For many, the Paris attacks are tantamount to an attack on Western liberalism itself. As the world reacts to these atrocities, the future of the Europe’s Schengen Area has been thrown into question.

The Schengen Area is a large swath of land across the European continent consisting of mostly European Union member states. When crossing the borders of Schengen Area member countries, travelers do not need to present passports or even pass through border checkpoints. In the wake of the Paris attacks, some Schengen Area member states are questioning whether operating the continent as one large country for the purposes of international travel is dangerous.

As of Wednesday, the Dutch government has been in talks with the governments of Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria concerning starting a miniature Schengen Area among these countries, while controlling the borders around this new area more tightly. The goal would not only be to deny terrorists entry to the region by means of a more careful vetting process, but also to control the influx of refugees coming from the Syrian conflict.

While French President François Hollande has admirably promised to follow through with his commitment to accept 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years, he has also castigated the European Parliament for lax border controls and blocks in place meant to prevent the sharing of airline passenger data between countries. Mr. Hollande and his representatives are pushing for systematic registry of those citizens entering the Schengen Area, as well as for the ability to share airline passenger data between the law enforcement agencies of member states. As of November 19th, all known perpetrators of the Paris attacks are EU nationals. The suspected mastermind of the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is a Belgian-born ISIS operative believed to have been in Syria. It appears that Abaaoud slipped back into Europe by way of Greece, thought of as one of the Schengen Area’s most porous borders.

4. A French state of emergency

On Thursday, the National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to assent to President François Hollande’s extension of a state of emergency for another three months. By a vote of 551 to 6, with a single abstention, France’s main legislative body signaled its full support for expanded executive authority to combat terrorism and engage in increased domestic surveillance. Among the provisional powers, a state of emergency bestows the government searches and seizures without judicial approval, house arrests for those deemed dangerous, and further surveillance authority.

Despite the full-throated legislative support for his emergency measures and expanded counterterrorist program, Mr. Hollande wants to ensure proposed changes stick by entrenching them into to the French Republic’s half-century old constitution. He is seeking amendments that his administration believes are requisite to the war-footing France has taken in the wake of last week’s attacks: increased legal surveillance powers, internal troop mobilization authority, and the power to revoke citizenship of those deemed a “terrorist risk”. He also called for higher security spending, which has put him on a collision course with fiscal hawks in Brussels who are insisting that France maintain its deficit limitation requirements under the EU Stability and Growth Pact.

The attacks of this past weekend, and the policy and security measures taken in response, came during an already tumultuous moment in French domestic politics. With regional elections coming up in December, embattled President Hollande’s shaky socialist coalition is facing a surge in rightwing support for the Socialist Party’s two main opponents, the Republicans and the National Front. The latter, led by anti-immigrant populist Marine Le Pen, is polling first in the country’s conservative northern departments. Her party, a leader of xenophobic French nationalism since its founding in 1972 by Ms. Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie, looks to have the most to gain in the wake of the ISIS terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who last year was re-elected to the leadership of the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement (which he subsequently renamed the Republicans), appears to be leading the early race for the 2017 presidential election. This rising right-wing tide partially explains the aggressive, bellicose stance that President Hollande has taken in the wake of the attacks.

5. An increase in French surveillance

In May, the French parliament passed a new “Intelligence Bill” in response to January’s terrorist attacks against several targets in Paris, including satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo’s office and a Jewish grocery store. The Intelligence Bill allows the French government to monitor the phone calls, emails, text messages, and other electronic communications of suspected terrorists without receiving a warrant. Additionally, the law requires Internet providers to collect metadata on users’ online activity, which is then processed to detect suspicious patterns. These intelligence measures are similar to those employed by US and UK intelligence services and have faced strong opposition from French politicians, the public, and international organizations such as Amnesty International.

Unlike in the US and UK, the new French surveillance law also grants the government the right to set up IMSI catchers – devices that impersonate cell towers – to track the location of cell-phone users. Moreover, the new law gives French law enforcement the right to enter suspected terrorists’ homes without a warrant and plant everything from microphones, cameras, and installing keystroke-tracking software on their computers.

Recent allegations of French and Belgian intelligence failures are likely to bolster pro-surveillance forces in France in the coming weeks and months. French and Belgian authorities had carried out more than 160 anti-terrorist raids by late Monday, and, with more raids expected in the coming months, French President François Hollande went before Parliament to request a further relaxation of warrant requirements for raids. Domestic and international voices will object, but fear and anxiety are likely only to strengthen Mr. Hollande and his allies’ pro-surveillance position.

6. Reactions in America

The attacks in Paris have triggered responses worldwide, including the United States. Although President Barack Obama wants to take in 10,000 more Syrian refugees (there are currently about 2,000 in the US), 30 governors (29 of them Republican) have announced their refusal to allow Syrian refugees to settle in their states in response to the events in Paris. The Republican governors cited fears of terrorists slipping in among the refugees’ ranks. The governors are not alone – a majority of Americans also do not want any Syrian refugees to be allowed into the United States.

Such fears are based on concerns that current regulations on refugees are too lax, and that allowing in refugees will provoke a flood of migration similar to the one with which Europe is currently dealing. But American rules on refugees are much more stringent than those of Europe. Officials from multiple agencies fly out to vet potential refugees. Biographical and family data is verified and connections to terrorism investigated. The whole process can take 18 months to three years to complete; Syrians face the most vetting of any people allowed into the US. The system is not perfect. Officials have confirmed that US intelligence in Syria, which can be used to verify potential refugees’ stories, is somewhat lacking. But since the 1980s, when the current system was implemented, no act of terror in the US has been committed by a refugee.

The governors have little legal authority to directly block the resettlement of refugees in their states, as refugees are let in by the State Department and then have the freedom to move around all 50 states. But since resettlement entails cooperation with state institutions, governors can use more indirect methods to derail resettlement. They might, for example, restrict funding to job training programs aimed at integrating Syrians into American society.

More opposition comes from Congress, where Republicans have voted to tighten restrictions on Syrian refugees entering the country. The negative reception may alienate many waiting Syrians, who already feel isolated in refugee camps in countries such as Turkey and Lebanon. Leaving them there could increase the chance of their radicalization, since refugee camps have thus far been a major source of militant recruitment.

While Mr. Obama’s quota of 10,000 would be almost six times larger than previous plans, the US still faces criticism over that number’s relative paucity and has seen calls to accept greater numbers of refugees. Mr. Obama’s proposed number is a small fraction of the 4.3 million Syrians who have fled their country. By contrast, Germany plans to take in one million refugees, while millions more are stuck in refugee camps in Syria’s neighboring countries.

David Gernon, Liam Conway-Pearson, Max Rowe, Will Kirkland, Alexi Stocker, and Wooyoung Lee contributed