by Adam Strobeyko
In 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin refused to join the so-called “coalition of the willing” to invade and disarm Iraq. The speech he gave to the UN to block the use of force against Iraqi government received applause and resulted in the temporal boost in popularity of Chirac government and the foreign minister in particular. The reverse was true with regards to people in power in other Western states. The coalition proceeded nevertheless and toppled the Hussein’s regime but did not succeed in replacing it with an efficient equivalent. The destabilized state could not exercise effective control over its territory. This led to the creation of the vacuum of power which was quickly to be filled by Daesh: originally a part of al-Qaeda created during the invasion, it morphed into a self-proclaimed state seeking to unite extremists in its sheer brutality diffused through modern media. Meanwhile, Arab Spring sparkled protests against al-Assad rule in the neighbouring Syria. They were quelled with violent crackdowns, which in turn met with further resistance from the population. Eventually, the circle of violence escalated into a full-scale civil war and the breakdown of country’s monopoly on the use of violence. The corresponding vacuum of power was filled by different groups including Daesh as the most notorious one.
France, under its new socialist government, was first to respond to these events: it was early in calling for the resignation of Assad. It was the country which created the international coalition against Daesh and was most active in targeting its territory with air-strikes. This fits well with the role of France as an “active diplomacy”, as proclaimed by its current Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius. The coordinated bombing of Syria was presented as a measure seeking to hit Daesh where it hurts while avoiding the mistakes of the past in form of full-scale invasion. However, this approach is riddled with inconsistencies. Firstly, the intervention in the region, however limited, took place without a Security Council Resolution, that is, without a mandate from the international community. Secondly, the activity of France was not limited to undercutting Daesh. As confirmed by French President François Hollande, France delivered weapons to the Sunni rebels to help them in their fight with government forces. He stated that Syrians “who are preparing a democracy” cannot be left alone. He recognized the terrible consequences of the dis-fragmentation of power in the region, while implying that the role of France is to help one of the fighting groups.
However well-intentioned this approach may be, its results are clearly disastrous. Paul Collier in his extensive study of political violence “Wars, Guns and Votes” shows evidence that helping rebels in any country usually results in higher costs borne by the population and could only be done in the most extreme cases of visible (moral) superiority of the rebels to the incumbent. It is unclear whether there exists any such superiority in the case of Syria. For example, the former DIA’s director Michael Flynn stated that White House’s move to support radical jihadists in Syria was a “willful decision”. Even in the most optimistic case, the hundreds of thousands of victims of the civil war is hardly outbalanced by a dim and far-fetched prospect of future “democracy”. Moreover, the parallel coalition of Iran and Russia was formed in order to support Assad. Therefore, we risk enforcing a proxy war of the worst kind where support for both sides of the conflict escalates proportionately and results in horrors of civilian population alike to that of the Spanish Civil War.
A question then arises: if Daesh does not have any ally, why does it continue to exist? The Economist explains that it is because fighting “the caliphate” is nobody’s priority: the US wants to limit its military commitment in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iran’s power, Iran and Russia want to keep Assad in power, Assad concentrates on other rebels directly challenging his rule and those other rebels want to topple his regime. It is all too good for Daesh: it thrives on chaos. The attacks of 13 November 2015 serve to show that it is still operational.
By choosing the location, the multi-cultural district of Paris, they strike against cross-cultural integration and show that we are not safe even when enjoying a Friday night outside. The motivation is multi-faceted: Daesh wants to further polarize the multi-cultural Western societies. By alienating Muslims from the rest of the society it hopes that they will be forced to choose sides and that significant proportion will radicalize and join “the caliphate”. This is why they leave passports behind. The other reason is ideological: Daesh believes that the final battle between “the Romans” (vaguely defined enemies) and the Muslims will take place in Dabiq. The battle will lead to the immediate expansion of “the caliphate”, which in turn will be countered by the appearance of the anti-Messiah, known as Dajjal. Dajjal will come from the region of eastern Iran and kill Daesh fighters until 5,000 remain. Just as he will be preparing to finish them off, Jesus, the second most revered prophet in Islam will reappear and spear Dajjal, leading to the ultimate victory of “the caliphate”. This is why Daesh’s propaganda magazine is called Dabiq and why it has welcomed other Western countries joining coalition against them.
The precise scale of French response to the attacks will be revealed in the nearest future. The wording used by the French president in his speech condemning the attacks comes dangerously close to triggering Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty on NATO’s collective self-defence. Ironically, this article was invoked by the US to justify response to 9/11. Triggering the self-defence clause could lead to a further step-up in military involvement in the region. Having this in mind, let us not forget about terrorist attacks which took place in Beirut and Baghdad the same week that Paris was attacked. For those people, the state of emergency we are facing now is everyday reality. One thing is certain: innocent people all over the world keep dying because of the power struggle above.
Featured image copyright: CC Wikileaks, https://www.facebook.com/wikileaks/photos/a.206387512729702.43344.108734602494994/919913434710436/?type=3&theater
