Paris a week on from the attacks remains sombre, agitated, anxious. These dismembered sentiments have been extended and accentuated into St Denis as security services using massive fire power stormed and destroyed their 'targets'. This reactive mood was further substantiated by President Hollande's call to extend emergency powers: the banning of demonstrations; tight quasi-military control of public places and spaces; 'on the spot' identity checks. There is little doubt that the mood in the city has changed but how deep and for how long...
There is also little doubt who caused this outrage. So let us remove any doubt as to the three points of reference that should influence what we should do next. Firstly, IS is not a product of Western societal behaviour, it is perverse, mutated version of Islam that has more to do with contested religiosity in the Middle East then any sense of American or European liberalism. Secondly, tragically, because of myopic, insulated American foreign policy supported by European acquiescence and or abstinence, which knew how to start wars but forgot how to end them, we have helped create the opportunity, the space for this socio-political abomination to develop an agenda, gain a foothold and start to secure its 'future'. Thirdly, although other 'terrorist groups' continue to pose an on-going threat to Western security IS offers an exceptionally ' clear and present danger' to us all because their 'representatives' have gained access through our 'forgiving borders' due to the wash back of those ill considered and short term foreign policy initiatives driven by Washington and confirmed in Brussels.
Where are we now? Whether Europe likes it or not Washington and President Obama continues to be the real lead in this situation. Hence, What does Obama see? More importantly what does he want to see?
He looks to the Middle East and... Afghanistan if it ever was a proper state has now returned in large part to Taliban control while Kabul and its immediate surroundings hangs on grimly to some sort of recognised civics. Syria is a broken and dismembered society. Iraq as a political and social entity that no longer exists, it is in three pieces, the IS Caliphate, Kurdistan and a Shia nominated region. Consequently, all these failed states have or are disgorging much of their citizenship onto and into Europe via Lebanon and Turkey. If you add to this the collapse of Libya, the return of a military dictatorship to Egypt, the on going Gordian knot that is Palestine and Israel and the Saudi/Iranian backed conflict in the Yemen the view is hellish.
What does Obama and Washington want to see? What would Paris and Europe like to see? Primarily, the removal of IS, the ending of the civil war in Syria and a return of civil society. A real placement of security in Afghanistan and the introduction of a federal understanding in the region previously known as Iraq. Secondly, the genuine reintroduction of talks based on the 'two state' solution for Palestine and Israel. A constructed plan to drag Libya back from the brink of societal collapse. The cessation of Saudi Arabian and Iranian support for the conflict in the Yemen and the introduction of a 'peace building' force.
This lengthy wish list or any part of it can only be achieved in any meaningful manner if three conditions are introduced. Firstly, the lead on this situation should not be the White House or Brussels but the United Nations driven by the Security Council and supported by the General Assembly. This allows the other significant partners - Russia and Iran - to be responsibly involved. The primary objectives for the UN are clear, the swift, unredeemable removal of IS and the settling of the Syrian civil war, as a consequence some semblance of political social balance will eventually return to 'Iraq'. Secondly, far greater involvement of other Middle East nations in taking responsibility for their own futures - as nation-states and as a region. Especially, in the areas of displaced people, local governance and funding of these 'terrorist' groups. Thirdly, that the US and Europe should re-evaluate their joint understanding of regional security policy and how it should be achieved since Europe should not leave itself vulnerable to the vagaries of Washington politics. Just because the US and EU share some common aims, values and history does that mean we should always follow in the dominant partner's path?
Is Paris just the result of unforeseen consequences? Possibly, but the key question is why were they unforeseen? The principal reasons seems obvious: US imperatives are not always aligned or sensitive to European needs for understandable reasons; Europe has for far too long ducked responsibility for foreign affairs and therefore, has become far too reliant on 'Uncle Sam'. To consider these observations just visit Washington and then Paris; they are distinctly different worlds filled with competing cultures and competitive politics. Especially now...
KK
There is also little doubt who caused this outrage. So let us remove any doubt as to the three points of reference that should influence what we should do next. Firstly, IS is not a product of Western societal behaviour, it is perverse, mutated version of Islam that has more to do with contested religiosity in the Middle East then any sense of American or European liberalism. Secondly, tragically, because of myopic, insulated American foreign policy supported by European acquiescence and or abstinence, which knew how to start wars but forgot how to end them, we have helped create the opportunity, the space for this socio-political abomination to develop an agenda, gain a foothold and start to secure its 'future'. Thirdly, although other 'terrorist groups' continue to pose an on-going threat to Western security IS offers an exceptionally ' clear and present danger' to us all because their 'representatives' have gained access through our 'forgiving borders' due to the wash back of those ill considered and short term foreign policy initiatives driven by Washington and confirmed in Brussels.
Where are we now? Whether Europe likes it or not Washington and President Obama continues to be the real lead in this situation. Hence, What does Obama see? More importantly what does he want to see?
He looks to the Middle East and... Afghanistan if it ever was a proper state has now returned in large part to Taliban control while Kabul and its immediate surroundings hangs on grimly to some sort of recognised civics. Syria is a broken and dismembered society. Iraq as a political and social entity that no longer exists, it is in three pieces, the IS Caliphate, Kurdistan and a Shia nominated region. Consequently, all these failed states have or are disgorging much of their citizenship onto and into Europe via Lebanon and Turkey. If you add to this the collapse of Libya, the return of a military dictatorship to Egypt, the on going Gordian knot that is Palestine and Israel and the Saudi/Iranian backed conflict in the Yemen the view is hellish.
What does Obama and Washington want to see? What would Paris and Europe like to see? Primarily, the removal of IS, the ending of the civil war in Syria and a return of civil society. A real placement of security in Afghanistan and the introduction of a federal understanding in the region previously known as Iraq. Secondly, the genuine reintroduction of talks based on the 'two state' solution for Palestine and Israel. A constructed plan to drag Libya back from the brink of societal collapse. The cessation of Saudi Arabian and Iranian support for the conflict in the Yemen and the introduction of a 'peace building' force.
This lengthy wish list or any part of it can only be achieved in any meaningful manner if three conditions are introduced. Firstly, the lead on this situation should not be the White House or Brussels but the United Nations driven by the Security Council and supported by the General Assembly. This allows the other significant partners - Russia and Iran - to be responsibly involved. The primary objectives for the UN are clear, the swift, unredeemable removal of IS and the settling of the Syrian civil war, as a consequence some semblance of political social balance will eventually return to 'Iraq'. Secondly, far greater involvement of other Middle East nations in taking responsibility for their own futures - as nation-states and as a region. Especially, in the areas of displaced people, local governance and funding of these 'terrorist' groups. Thirdly, that the US and Europe should re-evaluate their joint understanding of regional security policy and how it should be achieved since Europe should not leave itself vulnerable to the vagaries of Washington politics. Just because the US and EU share some common aims, values and history does that mean we should always follow in the dominant partner's path?
Is Paris just the result of unforeseen consequences? Possibly, but the key question is why were they unforeseen? The principal reasons seems obvious: US imperatives are not always aligned or sensitive to European needs for understandable reasons; Europe has for far too long ducked responsibility for foreign affairs and therefore, has become far too reliant on 'Uncle Sam'. To consider these observations just visit Washington and then Paris; they are distinctly different worlds filled with competing cultures and competitive politics. Especially now...
KK
RSS Feed
