France must change

What now? What will become of France after the attacks of 7th and 9th January? What will France do to ensure that the ‘spirit of 11th January’, that impressive and moving mobilisation of the people against terrorist violence, continues? The answers to these questions are varied. But for many French people, one thing’s for sure, their country must change. It must assess the issues that undermine a country worn down by depression, economic hardship and inequality. Of course, we must not neglect the ‘short term’, the one that relates to the urgency of the moment. We must first protect people and property with this general obsession: making sure there are no new attacks. Strengthening security forces, increase surveillance of sensitive sites, calls for the mobilisation of citizens: this classic mobilisation coupled with recurring calls to stand firm is necessary.

There is a downside, however, if the French government promised there would be no emergency laws, the fact remains there is still much to be worried about. Enhanced Internet control, reforms to the procedures for the surveillance of suspects, departure from the normal procedures that are usually placed under the control of the law (wiretapping and similar, length of time suspects are held in custody), are some of the measures envisaged and this upsets defenders of human rights and liberties. Apprehension, reinforced by long prison sentences handed down to those accused of condoning the attacks against Charlie Hebdo staff and the kosher store in Porte de Vincennes. However, in some cases, the accused had never had any dealings with the law and in particular, their provocative talk had nothing to do with jihadism but rather highlighted spontaneous anger, sometimes whilst drunk (!), against the police (like the driver who had nothing better to do than wish violent death on the police officers who came to issue him with a ticket). France will therefore have to be vigilant not to lose its soul and make the same mistakes as the United States. The ‘Patriot Act’, adopted after the 2001 September 11 attacks, is now synonymous with massive state intrusion into the private lives of citizens but also radical drifts that are unacceptable in a modern democracy such as Guantanamo Bay, (which is still open despite promises by President Obama in 2008) and CIA interventions worldwide. It is obvious that in the fight against terrorism, logistics and emergency laws are often temporary but end up being permanent.

There remains the question of the ‘long term’, which enables us to treat the root causes of the attacks. Some are caused externally, linked to the explosive situation in the Middle East and the Sahel. Even if France is not expected to resolve these conflicts, which has just happened requires France to consider its foreign policy and its recent military operations (Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Iraq, but we can also add Central Africa and even Côte d’Ivoire). Will this strategic thinking take place while people are still demanding military intervention in Syria against Bachar al Assad ‘s regime? Not sure, and it’s a shame because it might be necessary to explain to the French that their country is at war in these areas and this makes it a target. Indeed, in this globalised world of ours, there are no longer any distant wars. Commenting on the September 11 2001 attacks in the United States, General Giap, an iconic figure in the Vietnamese struggle against the US military, had this thought ‘These people (read Al-Qaeda) have taken their fight to the enemy, something we could never have done or even considered’. Unlike the Viet Minh who were aware of the need to avoid alienating the American public, the people France is fighting in the Sahel and the East intend to strike on French soil whatever the consequences. In this sense, the issue of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo was only a pretext and French leaders seem reluctant to explain this to their people. But there is another question that no one ever asks. Why then did France suffer these attacks by children born on their soil, who have grown up and been ‘educated’ there?

Who can refute the fact that spatial and social relegation, racism and refusal to accept diversity, is their responsibility? In a powerful New Year speech to the press, Prime Minister Manuel Valls spoke of the need to end the ‘territorial, social and ethnic apartheid’ that would gnaw away at working-class districts that have become ghettos. Committed words that impressed the media. So, are we to take them as a serious promise of government action so that all the Farids, Hassans and Mamadous feel completely French and respectful to the laws of the Republic? Let’s see now, need I remind you that after the 2005 suburban riots, then in 2007, a unanimous vote decreed ‘never again’. But nothing was done. Entire neighbourhoods are abandoned, given over to the drug lords, poorly serviced by public transport, forgotten by public service. Visible minorities remain confined to the margins and are only called upon when there are problems. Islam is a constant topic of negative, entrenched debate, often in the absence of those concerned. Worse still, even the positive phenomena, that is, the silent, successful integration of muchof the Muslim community, is denied and concealed. Living environment, spatial disintegration, access to a good education, equal employment opportunities; these are the things that should be the top priority. This remains the poor relation of government programmes obsessed with deficit reduction.

The 7th and 9th January killers did not come out of nowhere. They are the product of French society. Again, it would be risky to ignore it and not think seriously about this issue. There is real urgency. France is a country that has run out of national projects. Its monochrome elites, bloated with certainties, prejudices and paternalism towards minorities, refuse to take into account the world’s incredible readjustment, both economically, spiritually and also in terms of religion. Entangled in petty debates, they do not want to have the courage to admit that their country has stalled because it is incapable of redefining itself, to cut out the dead wood and let the other buds blossom. Because it is unable to admit that with 5 million Muslims on its soil, its identity has changed.

By AKRAM BELKAÏD *
* Akram Belkaïd, journalist and writer.An international economics expert and specialist in the Arab world, this Algerian has been living in France since 1995, and writes for Le Monde Diplomatique, the Orient XXI web site and Le Quotidien d’Oran. He also collaborates with Afrique Magazine and Afrique Méditerranée Business.