| Publications | France A-Z | France/U.S. Relations | France in the U.S. | News | Aller aux Etats-Unis | Just for Kids | Going to France | Contact |
|
fight against terrorism Speech by Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin at the New York Public Library. New York , September 28, 2004
Ladies and Gentlemen, It’s a great honor for me to be here. It's a privilege to address you at the New York Public Library, which is not just a Library, but also an institution that has fostered exchanges to promote cultural dialogue and cooperation, beginning with France. I would like to offer a warm thank-you to the Library’s president, Mr. Paul Leclerc, and director of public programs, Mr. Paul Holdengraber, for their kind invitation. Let me also thank Mr Stanley HOFFMANN for his warm introduction. I'd like to reassure you immediately and those who might be worried about my being here. • I'm here at a very specific moment : we’re living at a time of historical transition, as the world experienced at the Renaissance and during the Enlightenment. Whatever the political choices the American people make in a few weeks, your country, along with other nations in the world, will have to take major decisions that will concern us all. We must do this together - Americans and Europeans, Americans and French - in the spirit that guided us and brought us together at the most critical times in our history, when America’s independence was at stake and when Europe and France had to be liberated from the Nazi yoke. I'm guided by a sense of urgency : we are not at the end of the terrorist threat. We’ve had some successes, but there’ve also been failures. We’ve got to do more and do better. • We have to be clear-sighted. • We have also to be tenacious. Because that most violent manifestation of terrorism is the product of a strategy built on three pillars: * * The threat of terrorism is still with us today, more so than ever. • From one end of the world to the other, attacks have increased in the last three years and are moving closer to the West in concentric circles. - Then Africa was targeted, with twin attacks in Mombassa on November 28 that same year. - Then the Middle East was struck directly, beginning with Israel I will come back to later. Muslim countries now have some of the highest numbers of victims of Islamic terrorism: Jerba in April 2002; Riyadh in May 2003; Casablanca in May 2003; Istanbul in November 2003. Without counting the regular bombings in Iraq which usually target civilians. - Lastly, the attack in Madrid on March 11 this year struck at the heart of Europe, proving that al Qaeda is once again able to rain death and destruction in the Western world. We have to ask ourselves two questions: Why Muslim countries? Why Europe? • For the same reason: Terrorists groups are determined to bring about divisions in the Muslim community so that they can be seen as the sole guarantors of a pure Islam. - The Muslim countries, because they are depicted by religious fundamentalists as led by corrupt regimes, incapable of standing up to the economic and social pressures of non-Muslim countries. - Europe: • In both cases, division is the goal: . - Within the oumma or Moslem community, to end the domination of regimes considered impious and impose shari’a. - Outside the oumma, to weaken the non-Muslim countries. * * In the face of this persisting threat, it is imperative we sharpen our analyses and go much further in our response. • Keep in mind one strategic reality: from the outset, terrorism has been a weapon that combines secrecy, surprise and lightning strike. It is the weapon of choice for groups and individuals without a military capability to compel attention to their demands and demonstrate their capacity for action. - 9/11 brought about a true “revolution in terrorist affairs,” by showing that the capability for mass destruction was no longer reserved for states alone. And we’re aware that access to weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological and radiological—is now one of the objectives of the most radical groups. - But let’s take a closer look at the phenomenon: those who want to attack us are a few hundred individuals scattered around the globe in countries miles away each other. And yet the terrorists have turned their dispersion into an asset; their mobility into a fearful weapon against all the peoples of the world. They have turned their weakness into strength. So successfully, that no state today can put the fight against terrorism anywhere but at the top of its security priorities. - We have to understand this paradox of terrorist strength if we are not only to eradicate it for good but prevent it from morphing into a structured political organization. For this, I’d like to put forward three explanations which underscore the seriousness of the trap before us. * • The first explanation: terrorism is opportunistic. It leeches onto all the wounds in the world to expand its territory and recruitment. - Take territory: since terrorism itself champions no national cause, it tries to take over all causes for its own advantage. It is stateless, and so makes its lair in any country. It feeds on the world’s sores and cries. It lingers in any wasteland, in any no-man’s land where the arbitrary rules and law is absent. Are the national claims of the Chechens the same as those of the Jamaah al Islamyiah in Indonesia? No. And yet al Qaeda-linked elements are active in the Caucasus just as they are in Indonesia, embracing various aspirations to which they want to give the legitimacy of a global cause. In the Caucasus, for example, they fuel the hostility of the Muslim Ingush for the Orthodox Ossetians by exacerbating nationalist claims and religious differences. The Muslim fear of being swallowed up in the Russian entity is answered by the notion of radical Islam as savior. - Take recruitment : terrorist groups offer individuals without a compass a cause to serve. The more despair or resentment grips some people, the more the terrorist recruitment base expands. That’s true in areas of conflict, as was the case in Bosnia before, and in Afghanistan today. It is also true in the Muslim countries accused of playing the West’s game, like Saudi Arabia and the Maghreb countries. It is equally true in our populations where the most fragile members can be seduced by extremist language. • This systematic process of exploiting places and individuals is something we’ve seen several times since the early 1990s. - In Afghanistan first. At the beginning of the eighties, Arab combatants flocked to the border with Pakistan to support the Afghans in their fight against the Soviet invader. Bin Laden himself is the symbol of this rootless terrorism that attaches itself to a foreign cause, mobilizes Muslims of all nationalities and finally mounts far-flung operations under optimum security conditions. The grafting process takes time and rarely leads to a merger with the country. It was only after several years that al Qaeda combatants earned real stature in Afghanistan. And their leader has always tried to maintain the autonomy of his troops, wanting them to use the fighting in the Afghan provinces as military training but also to be able to intervene outside, for instance in Chechnya. - The Chechen conflict attracts al Qaeda combatants for two reasons. - In Iraq, lastly, hundreds of foreign combatants have flocked, taking advantage of the country’s porous borders, instability, and the aspirations of the various factions. New groups are forming all the time, that carry out abductions, summary executions and attacks on the foreign forces. Their members come from such disparate horizons that they are sometimes in open rivalry among themselves; they are being recruited among loyalists of the former regime but they also include nationalists who feel humiliated by the foreign presence in Iraq, and Iraqi or internationalist supporters of radical Islam. The two most disturbing developments are the growing ties with al Qaeda and the radicalization of their methods of action. Even extremist Kurdish groups like Ansar al-Islam are becoming more infused with jihadist rhetoric. In short, there’s an infinite number of groups in Iraq forming a complex, nebulous fundamentalist entity whose objective is chaos. * • The second explanation for the grip of terrorism is its capacity to multiply. This has to do with three paradoxes : - One, its operating methods are a mix of the modern and the archaic. Terrorists’ groups have the capacity to use the most sophisticated communications technology but continue to transfer funds through the practice of hawala, based solely on trusting a man’s word. They are seeking how to deliver chemical and biological weapons but slit throats barbarically and sow terror with suicide bombings. They use the most sophisticated means but to spread the most primitive of messages. Their actions are transmitted globally by the media, yet their aim is the radical Islamization of social institutions and rules. - The second paradox is that we face a fractured organization that is being used for a strategy of globalization. The strikes on various al Qaeda leaders have led to the dispersal of the group into a host of autonomous cells. These can more easily blend into the regional setting, espouse the most diverse national causes and act without referring directly to a higher authority. The messages put out on the Internet serve as a rallying point for individuals with no links, who are consequently all the harder to track down and arrest. These fractured cells, operating in Europe, the Maghreb and Asia, seek to spread their message of hate and to achieve the unity of an extremist Islam through bombings. In a nutshell, al Qaeda seems to be operating more like a holding company: a virtual head provides the motivations and financing while autonomous franchises take care of the action. The advantage of this system of operating is twofold: it guarantees effective protection against any external offensive and increases the strike capabilities of terrorist groups. The global cause harvests the benefits of local terror. - The third paradox is the fact that we’re up against a movement of inspirational leaders and do-ers, intermediaries and bomb-planters. Terrorism is not homogeneous. It follows a division of labor which optimizses the effectiveness of each. * • The third explanation: the mobility of terrorism. - First, it’s a rule of action. Terrorist groups strike where democracies don’t expect them. They re-form when we think we have dealt with them once and for all. They enter into alliances of fortune with distant groups with which they have scarcely anything in common so as to set up in new territories and increase their strike capability. They worm themselves into the fabric of our society and learn its failings and weaknesses. In their own way, the terrorists are hackers, breaking into our networks in absolute obscurity to cause havoc and spread their messages of death. - But their mobility is also a technique for infiltrating the consciences of the world, following a two-stage process: violence, and consolidation. - This mobility leads, lastly, to a particularly troubling prospect—a prospect that is not certain but that we should keep in mind: these various movements scattered around the world might morph into a structured political movement. Two factors could accelerate the process: * * Given the seriousness of the present circumstances, the deterioration in the international situation over the last three years and the prospect of further mutations in terrorism, we have to rise to our responsibilities. More than ever, we must avoid three traps in our fight against terrorism. * • The first trap is to equate the fight against terrorism with a merciless war. It seems inappropriate to me. - Inappropriate because it presupposes a clearly identified enemy which a state or group of states can oppose in a combat governed by rules and principles. Yet, that’s not a definition of terrorism; it is not a threat like others. It wears all the faces of those individuals who have decided to lock the world into violence and fear. - Inappropriate because terrorist groups respect none of the rules of warfare. - Calling to war against terrorism is also risky since it gives the various terrorist groups a legitimacy and audience they crave. It gives standing to the fight they’re waging with the weapons of indiscrimination and fanaticism. It accords them the status they need to spread their extremist ideas as widely as possible. Al Qaeda, by the way, was the first organization to bring up the idea of a war against the West. The first to build itself legitimacy, not only on the ground but also from the reactions of the Western powers. What al Qaeda’s top leaders wanted from the outset is to be singled out and as such recognized by America. Bin Laden against Washington, for impoverished people receptive to fundamentalist language, it’s like David and Goliath. Weakness against power. It’s a terrible trap, and we must get out of it as quickly as possible. In short, looming behind the words “war on terrorism” is confirmation that we’re facing a clash of civilizations in which some want to see a new outcome in history. For that is precisely where the terrorists want to lead us: to a head-on clash of religions and cultures from which we will all emerge battered and broken. We have to fight this caricatural and pessimistic vision which ignores the diversity of Islam, the aspirations of the vast majority of Muslims for peace, and the reciprocal influences that have existed for centuries. We have to find a way out. * • The second trap is fear, that would lead us either to headlong flight or retrenchment. - Confronted with the horror of terrorist acts, we may be tempted to make an exception and go outside democratic laws. - This approach, I am convinced, is a dead-end. It would lead the democracies to renege on the values of freedom, the right of self-defense, respect for the individual, all of which make up its strength. What would be the value of a democracy that ignored the values it wished to spread through the world? Or what would be the value of a democracy that deprived its citizens of the most basic rights under the pretext of guaranteeing their security? Wouldn’t it mean that terrorist organizations have already prevailed, if not over the land at least in our minds? We, French and Europeans, have already had experience in the past of resorting to exceptional methods in the name of our citizens’ security. I say this in all conscience: Such choices do not produce results and they have to be paid for over years. - In the face of terrorism, democracy must set the example. In all circumstances, we must abide by its demands. In a state that lives by the rule of law, there is no justification whatsoever for the government to deprive a defendant of the right to a fair defense, regardless of the crimes he has committed. That means that detainees convicted of having links with terrorism must have access to a lawyer and be detained in acceptable conditions. * • The third trap is to count solely on the use of force. - We all want to stop terrorist actions as quickly as possible. We all dream of a world that would finally be rid of the fear of attacks, that could stop worrying about indiscriminate violence happening anywhere and at any time. - In this context, the use of military force may prove to be essential. We saw it in Afghanistan. The difficulty lies in effectively combining the use of force with all the other means at our disposal to combat terrorism. But we will not stop terrorism solely through force. - The reason is that we’re seeing today a revolution in power: the most advanced military equipment is being challenged by the most rudimentary instruments. Material power is held in check by stubborn conscience. The result is that the ill-considered use of force can only rally and motivate groups which, as we saw, were fragmented. It gives them the cohesion they’re lacking, which could lead to an even more serious threat. The targeted use of force can be a trap: civilians always suffer, whatever the technologies employed. And the number of martyrs increases ; they are new icons for people who have no other prospect than violence. Force opens wounds which become breaches the terrorists can rush to fill. * * So how are we to be more effective? How can we win together a battle for which we were not prepared? * • Above all, by sticking to our principles: They will keep us from getting off course and enhance the effectiveness of our action. - Principles of the rule of law first: we have a duty to set an example in contrast to terrorists who would like to drag us into systematic repression and challenge public freedoms. Democracy’s strength lies in the place it gives to individual rights, the recognition of each person’s value, the protection of each of its members. We must stick to these values. We must defend these values. This does not preclude firmness and the adaptation of our system to the threat: as interior minister, I’m constantly looking for the most effective instruments to fight terrorism. The measures I’ve taken regarding the expulsion of foreign nationals preaching hate and violence, the modernization of identity documents using biometrics and strengthening coordination in internal intelligence meet this objective. But none of the decisions were taken without strict attention to the rules of law. Self-defense, yes. But not abdication of core values. - The second principle is respect. What does extremist language feed on? The scorn we allegedly show for the poorest populations, our alleged indifference in letting regions sink into violence, the suspicion that now attaches to Western interventions: Why do they act? In the name of what values? In whose economic or security interests? Everyone is free to decide that these questions are pointless. But no one can ignore the fact that they exist and that they reinforce the language of the people we fight. To minimize the effect, we have to show that we do listen, and do pay attention and respect to the poor and downtrodden who aspire to recognition and dialogue. - The third principle is unity. The terrorist is constantly seeking to divide. At world level, to divide Western and Muslim societies. * • We must continue to cooperate on this common basis. Use the skills we each have, and build on all our networks. This guarantees our success. - In this respect France and the United States, which both have significant resources and complementary assets, have a critical role to play. The high level of cooperation between our two countries in the fight against terrorism is well-known. It goes far beyond our joint actions in Afghanistan which are already clear evidence of our common resolve. On the most sensitive issues, especially exchanging intelligence, Paris and Washington are in contact all the time and regularly compare analyses. Whenever the Americans express a particular concern—for instance, last December regarding US-bound commercial flights from Europe--we respond in the shortest possible time and take the requisite measures. Whether we’re talking about dismantling financing networks or monitoring certain weapons that might be hijacked by terrorist organizations, our exchanges always lead to pragmatic and effective solutions. Our rigorous work has accelerated the debate in other forums, especially the G8. The decisions that have already been taken with regard to security in public transport and machine-readable passports are further proof. - At the European level, increased cooperation is still a daily concern. For as we know only too well: terrorist networks ignore borders and exploit the slightest weakness in our system. The Frankfurt cell which planned an attack on the cathedral in Strasbourg, France, is a good example of the ability of groups to operate from one city to another, from one country to another in complete secrecy. In this area, too, we have to continue developing high-quality technical and human intelligence, bring in Europe-wide judicial procedures and use the best technological tools available. - Let’s also realize we need to cooperate more closely with countries in the southern hemisphere. At the United Nations, measures have been taken to provide technical cooperation to states that are the least-equipped in the fight on terrorism. They apply to financing networks as well as arms smuggling and border controls. It’s a first step. But it is still insufficient given the very real risk ; terrorist groups take advantage of the weakest states by exploiting deficiencies in their security and monitoring systems. Remember that the twin attacks against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998 were planned from Sudan. That the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000, was launched from Yemen. That the influence of the jihadists threatens to spread to Sahelian Africa more every day. So increasing aid and strengthening our cooperation are a matter of urgency. * • But aside from the immediate response, which is necessary, we will not end terrorism in a lasting way until progress is made in settling the most serious regional crises and addressing lagging development in some countries. - Once again, we need to remember the lessons of the recent past. In order for al Qaeda’s strategy to work, for a limited number of fanatics to become a sort of Muslim oumma, there had to be a sort of catalyst. Neither Chechnya, which is too far from the Middle East, nor the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan had succeeded in rallying the fundamentalist Muslims into one. The event that did was the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, that sharpens the frustrations and resentments. It’s a fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a place all its own in the popular imagination in the region. People identify with it beyond national and ethnic divisions. Present-day terrorism does not only have its roots in Afghanistan. It can also be found—and no way justified of course—in the exploitation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the closed door to any prospect of peace. • That is why we cannot hope to see an end to Islamic terrorism without eliminating the ideological pretexts it adopts for its own uses, particularly the anger and despair in the Arab Muslim population over the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point, we have to make up for lost time. We have to move quickly. We, Europeans and Americans, have to do so together. • For that, I see three priorities: - First priority: Find a way to unlock the door to peace in the Middle East. At this point, the door is shut. Palestinians and Israelis have before them the prospect at best of imposed separation, at worst, attacks and reprisals. Americans and Europeans have a vital role to play in helping the two sides find a way to a just and equitable peace. We have the instruments, in particular the road map and the Quartet. We should put our whole resolve into furthering that end. For if the gates of Baghdad have led us to war, the gates of Jerusalem will lead us to peace. This would show that we are determined to see justice in the region, that we don’t have double-standards, that we are capable of barehandedly taking the risk for peace and putting fear, egoism and ideology aside. - Second priority : help Iraq pull out of the chaos so that the country can get back on track, recover its place in the region and in the international community. The present situation is untenable for the Iraqi people, dangerous for regional stability, threatening for neighboring countries and a terrible burden for the foreign forces. - The third priority : maintain our support for Afghanistan. The country is going through a sensitive period with upcoming presidential elections and renewed threats from the Taliban. Together we had a common ambition in Afghanistan : a democratic transition that respects the religious and ethnic identity of the Afghan nation. We can still win. While Afghanistan had gone through two decades of fighting, oppression and poverty, it is gradually moving back to the path of freedom and peace. We must not allow fundamentalist groups and the interests of minorities to undermine our efforts. • We have to put these perspectives in the framework of a comprehensive vision of international organization. The challenge is enormous because it rests on a paradox: - On one hand every individual, every people must be accorded representation on a measure with his expectations; - On the other, we must be able to resolve problems on a global scale: regional crises, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and again, terrorism. - How do we bridge the individual and the global, the defense of particular identities and the definition of common rules? For centuries, the objective of each of our countries has been to build a national democracy. Today, in the face of the new challenges to the world--economic, social, cultural, environmental, ethical—we have to set about building a genuine world democracy. The United Nations is the only conceivable forum for defining the indispensable tools, norms and structures. Is this a utopian vision? Not to my mind. Rather, it’s an objective to aim for in a shaky world. * * Ladies and gentlemen, Standing before you in this city, which three years ago suffered the deadliest attack ever in America, I want to say I am absolutely convinced that together we will see an end to terrorism. It’s a question of resolve. And lucidity. • Resolve, because political leaders must be continually mobilized, intelligence services must work night and day, the best available technological means must be used and all our citizens must be vigilant; only this way can we thwart future attacks. The threat is serious. but our absolute determination to face it is equally so. • Lucidity, because we face a movement that is one step ahead of us. That has to be reversed. How? Terrorism is like an iceberg, with a visible tip and a submerged part. It has to be dealt with globally: - To deal with the tip, we must increase our efforts in areas like intelligence, police work, border controls, judicial inquiries, tracking in the field, technical cooperation with countries at risk, so that one by one we can trace the network and dismantle it. - To deal with the submerged part, with the complex reality that terrorism feeds on, we have to use a mix of guile and graciousness. Deepening our cooperation policy, offering assistance in dealing with the epidemics that are ravaging whole continents, working together to control climate change--these are all ways to be explored together. • Our century faces a major challenge. Let’s make no mistake about it. Tomorrow our children will want to know about the decisions we have taken today for justice and peace. - We must act now. We must mobilize now and work together for world unity. - We all stand to gain from better cooperation among states. We all stand to gain from quietly affirming our identities, from the respect accorded to each nation, from equality among peoples. • When I was a student, and I regret that it was sometime ago, we were all familiar with the quip: - What is good for General Motors is good for the United States, and what is good for the United States is good for the world. - Today, I think it would be more fair to say: What is good for people is good for the world, and what is good for the world is also good for the United States. Thank you./.
Embassy of France in the United States - September 29, 2004
|
