Rioters fired shotguns at the police in a working-class suburb of Paris on Sunday, wounding 10 officers as the country's fast-spreading urban unrest escalated dangerously. Just hours earlier, President Jacques Chirac called an emergency meeting of top security officials and promised increased police pressure to confront the violence.
"The republic is completely determined to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear," Mr. Chirac said at a news conference in the courtyard of Élysée Palace after meeting with his internal security council. "The last word must be from the law."
Chirac and the French government, to this point, seem completely impotent (and that's being charitable). It appears they really have no idea of how to control the riots, much less stop them. The length and increasing breadth of the problem are what cause me to reach that conclusion. They also seem loath to take more serious moves ... such as involving the military if necessary.
Again, based on my reading about the riots, I'm not sure they're necessarily based as much in "muslim extremism"—as many would like to tar this particular problem—as in simple criminality. No question that France, and for that matter, Europe, is strugging with the cultural impact of a large muslim immigration problem, but these riots seems more the result of criminal action than religious extremism. I again use as one of my primary sources for this line of thought the extremely informative article by Theodore Dalrymple (yes I know I keep mentioning it, but it bears repeating if you haven't read it yet).
Interestingly, the riots now seems to almost have become a game between police and the criminals, with cars the method of scorekeeping.
More than 3,300 vehicles have been destroyed, along with dozens of public buildings and private businesses, since the violence began.
As we discussed on the podcast yesterday, these problems are the result of French (and, essentially, European) policies which establish a balkanized society and which purposely exclude immigrants from the rest of French society, making no attempt to assimilate them. Given a minimum level of subsistance through the generous benefits of France's welfare state and with no hope of employment because of the physical and cultural walls that has been built to exclude them, the ghettos developed their own laws. As Mark Steyn points out, before the riots 9,000 police cars had been stoned in these ghettos since the first of the year. And, as Dalrymple records, in most cases police rarely venture into them if they can avoid it.
Apparently, according to some in France, this is all Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's fault. You see Sarkozky decided it was time to crack down on crime which, of course, meant at least a semi-serious attempt at taking back control of the ghettoes. What temerity. To attempt to impose the rule of law in lawless areas. Obviously some in France would much prefer to have left the powder keg lit and alone and continue to guess when it would explode sometime in the future rather than attempting to extinguish the fuse. Appeasement in another form. You'd think the French would have learned that lesson by now.
Yes, the more I monitor this situation, the less I'm inclined to agree that religious fundamentalism or extremism is at its base. I'm now more inclined to see it as an act of criminals. Criminals who were created by the blatant and arrogant neglect of France and its government. And I'm not so sure the government of France has the means, or the willpower, to do what is necessary to stop the mayhem.
Perhaps the real question is, what Chirac defines as ’tough’. Consider that Chirac’s ’Tough response’ to Saddm was to call for a UN commission on the matter.
I agree that the riots are not religious. But I think the "solutions" will be. The thugs burning cars and firing at police don’t have coherent demands, except perhaps jobs, which would be hard for the Govt. to provide.
But there will be "Community Leaders" who will take advantage of the Government’s desire to dialogue and come to a solution, and their solution will be greater autonomy within the cites, which will translate to sharia.
"I agree that the riots are not religious. But I think the "solutions" will be."
I’ve read reports (in the exempt media, take it with what salt you will) that France is "negotiating" with "religious leaders".
So, I think the predicition is right on the money - the Islamic leaders will step forward, and take the spotlight, and where it wasn’t based about religion, it soon will be.
So, I think the predicition is right on the money - the Islamic leaders will step forward, and take the spotlight, and where it wasn’t based about religion, it soon will be.
But for negotiations to be meaningful they have to yield results, and that means the "Islamic leaders" will have to produce them.
But, for instance, does Abu Mazen "control" the "Palestinian" groups now? But who’s in the negotiations?
Just because they can’t actually deliver doesn’t mean they won’t become the ones in charge by stepping forward and making promises. On a darker note, after making them, they might have to deliver - and take power the hard way, as well.
Interestingly Der Spiegel agrees with your assessment. But note how they think it will happen:
Suddenly "big brothers"—devout bearded men from the mosques who wear long traditional robes—are positioning themselves between the authorities and the rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, calling for order in the name of Allah. As thousands of voices shout "Allahu Akbar" from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings, shivers run down the spines of television viewers in their seemingly safe living rooms.
As welcome as these self-appointed keepers of the peace may be, worried authorities think they have detected something akin to a Muslim law enforcement group—perhaps even the beginnings of an Islamic militia. "The logic behind this unrest," says one police officer, "is secession." If he’s right, it would be a nightmare scenario of entire neighborhoods and communities separating themselves from the state and essentially declaring their independence, creating zones with their own laws, areas to which the authorities no longer have access unless they wish to be perceived as hostile intruders.
How do you negotiate in that scenario if you’re Chriac?
But, for instance, does Abu Mazen "control" the "Palestinian" groups now? But who’s in the negotiations?
Indeed. I pointed this out a few weeks ago when I talked about Criminal Enterprise Armies (a Ralph Peters term). These groups seem to conform to his theory pretty well as a developing power within the world (and in dying nation-states). Somolia, for instance, was run by CEAs.
This goes back to the Criminal Enterprise Armies Ralph Peters talks about in his book "New Glory", which operate outside of any recognizable boundaries which traditional nation states can take advantage of to fight and defeat them. Or said another way, because they have no ’center of power’, there’s nothing tangible, as we’re accustomed to thinking, for us to go after in terms of territory or a capital. When we took Baghdad, the Iraqi ba’athist regime ceased to exist as an entity in control of Iraq. No such "Baghdad" exists for Al Qeada. So we must take on each of the "franchises" as we find them, using the military if necessary, and all other tools available to defeat them. All the while looking for more franchises and more jihadists.
I think that’s what France is facing. AQ is as much a CEA as the rioters are. And there’s no "Baghdad" for this bunch either (and my guess is it may not be organized enough to have an actual heirarchy). So France is in the middle of a whole new ballgame where they have to first determine who holds the power to stop this before they can meaningfully "negotiate" with anyone, and that may be a very, very difficult job in and of itself.
