How France Lost its Mustard: A Story of War, Famine, and Western Negligence

 An unusual phenomenon has struck France in the last six months; where once sat jars of mustard lining the condiment aisle at grocery stores now sits empty. Upon first glance this may seem as just another random food shortage, likely spurred by the seemingly never-ending production and shipping issues resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. But for the average French citizen who consumes one kilogram of mustard a year, and for a country that describes mustard as its favorite condiment, this is no small issue. Thus, outrage ensued. The national mustard shortage has made the product impossible to find, leaving individuals to turn to social media to beg fellow users for donations or to show off their sacred spread. French shoppers were forced to deal with a grim reality: mustard was nowhere to be found. 

At the root of this shortage lies a much larger international crisis: the war in Ukraine. Indeed, mustard production is a large part of both Russia and Ukraine’s agricultural yield. Ukraine is the fourth largest producer of mustard seed, and the second largest exporter. However, they produce a different mustard then the French, Dijon variant. The Ukrainian mustard seed is typically a milder one, and hugely popular within Eastern European countries. However, due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, production and export of the mustard seed has stopped, forcing Eastern European buyers to turn to French mustard instead, which has upped demand for French mustard, thus causing the shortage.

Mustard seed production is not the only export that has halted ever since Putin ordered the Russian army to invade earlier this year, other valuable exports such as wheat, barley, and corn have faced similar deficits due to the conflict. The widespread fighting has significantly decreased the areas available for harvest, particularly in the territories of Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Chernihiv and Kyiv. 

International Food Shortages

         Ukraine’s countryside is home to some of the most fertile land on the planet. The US International Trade Administration (ITA) estimates that Ukraine possesses close to a third of the world’s black soil reserves, (a fertile and moist soil that produces the highest agricultural yields). It is thanks to this fertile land that Ukraine is commonly labeled “the breadbasket of the world.” The country produces large amounts of grain, wheat, and barley, and exports around 90% of its total production. Alongside grain production, Ukraine also exports large amounts of corn and sunflower oil. Ukraine exports its goods to all four corners of the globe, but its primary areas of export are to Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. Ukraine sends its food to the places that need it most: developing countries that are heavily reliant on wheat and corn and are sensitive to price increases and shortages. These countries include Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan. During times of peace, Ukraine was easily able to export its wheat and other grain products, but current Russian blockades along the Black Sea coast are preventing the trade of necessary food supplies.

         According to Ukrainian crisis management scholar, Anna Nagurney, over 400 million people across the world rely on food from Ukraine. Additionally, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, estimates that around 181 million people could face a food crisis or famine this year, caused by shortages and increased prices. [*3] At the root of this issue lies the millions of tons of Ukrainian agricultural production that has halted ever since the war began. Now, millions of vulnerable people across the world face the threat of a deadly famine.

         For many across the Western world, this minor mustard shortage in France marked the first realization of the ongoing war’s broader implication. Since the start of the War in early 2022 the West has been largely concerned with Europe’s reliance on energy from Russia. The threat of a gas shortage in Europe has dominated Western media headlines, leaving little room for concern or interest in the ways Ukraine has supported other corners of the world. Although it is an inherent truth that a country’s media primarily focus on issues that affect its own people (European and American news sources and media cannot be blamed entirely), the neglect of this crisis reflects a deep failure within Western media to document crises unrelated to us.

The Failure of the West

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, European and American war and conflict experts have neglected to draw attention to the wider implications of the war. There has been little to no analysis or discourse on Russia’s role in Africa’s food crisis and Russian hunger politics. Instead, much of the discourse around the war in primary news outlets has analyzed the psychology behind Putin’s decision to invade, or how the West should have seen the war coming. Other popular opinions tend to focus on the war’s implications for shifting the balance of power, the return of NATO, and the impact sanctions will have on the energy crisis. What is missing from this conversation is a thorough understanding of Putin’s ambition in other parts of the world, and how war routinely affects vulnerable and dependent populations first.

By choosing to focus on the ways that the West will be affected, politicians, scholars, and other experts have fundamentally failed to understand the global stake of this war and the true global reach of Russia’s intentions. Russia is starving the Global South as a political tactic to help them win the war. Putin is employing Stalin’s tactic in the 1930’s of political famine once again to help end sanctions against Russia, and create a narrative for African and Asian countries in which Ukraine is seen as the witholder of food and fuel. Yale historian and author, Timothy Snyder, believes that Russia’s tactic of global starvation is a modern attempt at Russian colonialism. In June this year Snyder reflected on the increasing signs of starvation and tweeted that “a world famine is a necessary backdrop for a Russian propaganda campaign against Ukraine. Actual mass death is needed as the backdrop for a propaganda contest.”

The Politics of Starvation

2022 was already expected to be a year of famine and starvation, thanks to ongoing droughts and inflation, but Putin’s role has only magnified the famine’s effects. Countries have already started to prepare for increased food prices and lack of goods: “Some countries are reacting by trying to protect domestic supplies. India has restricted sugar and wheat exports, while Malaysia halted exports of live chickens, alarming Singapore, which gets a third of its poultry from its neighbor.” Snyder believes that Russia’s international famine campaign has three components, each designed to weaken a different part of the world. Firstly, Russian blockages of Ukrainian goods hope to end the narrative of Ukraine as the “breadbasket of the world” for the vast majority of countries that receive its wheat and grain, such as Somalia, Libya, and Lebanon. Putin hopes this will decrease support for Ukrainian freedom and destroy the concept of Ukrainian statehood. Secondly, Putin hopes that this famine will increase the rates of refugee migration into an already politically unstable Europe, as people from Sub-saharan Africa flee into Europe in hopes of finding food and a better quality of life. Putin’s final goal within his mass-starvation tactic is one of political propaganda. Putin plans to blame Western sanctions for food supply issues, thus creating a narrative in which the West is to blame for global starvation. A successful change in narrative for Putin will thus ensure that Russian citizens (many of which are already angry at the war and the effects of sanctions) remain ignorant and naive of the true nature of Putin’s strategic thinking. 

Russia’s need for strong and powerful propaganda is only growing, thanks to Russia’s first military mobilization since World War II, which was announced in late September. The latest increase in military efforts has led to more protests by Russian citizens angry at the Kremlin. Over a thousand citizens were arrested in cities across the country as they protested the need for the 300,000 new troops that Russian officials are demanding.

Frustration and resentment across Russia will only grow as the war continues, therefore Putin’s need to create global implications and shift Russian anger outward will only become more pressing as time goes on. By framing the issues and effects of the war as part of a larger Western-led campaign to starve the world, Putin can prevent his citizens from rising up against him. Russians are already subjected to misinformation and propaganda about the war. The Kremlin has successfully convinced millions of Russian citizens that the war is Ukraine’s fault, spreading stories that “Ukrainians had fired on Russian forces during the cease-fire, and neo-Nazis were “hiding behind civilians as a human shield.” This disinformation tactic makes Russians particularly susceptible to Putin’s lies and less likely to understand his starvation politics. 

Putin has also applied the same tactics of disinformation to African nations, in an attempt to spread anti-West and anti-UN sentiment, while gaining political influence. Putin’s expansion of propaganda to Africa reveals the true diabolical nature of his intentions. Already aware of the need to provide an explanation for the lack of resources exported from Ukraine, Russia has established at least sixteen known operations of disinformation across the continent, otherwise known as dezinformatsyia. The goal of these campaigns is to shift anger onto the West, deny Russia’s role in withholding exports, and prop up political regimes that support Russia’s political ambitions. Through the use of sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Tiktok, Russia has actively succeeded in creating often untraceable campaigns of lies. The extent to which Russia has spread falsehoods through the continent should both alarm and frighten the West. 

         It is time for Western leaders to acknowledge the global implications of the war in Ukraine, and their correlation to famine and food shortages.  In an attempt to spread concern and awareness, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres stated “Global hunger levels are at a new high. In just two years, the number of severely food insecure people has doubled, from 135 million pre-pandemic to 276 million today … More than half a million people are living in famine conditions — an increase of more than 500 percent since 2016.” These numbers are already alarming without the added implications of war. Given these circumstances, it is vital that Western leaders work directly with countries already affected by these devastating food shortages. Similarly, Western media must turn its gaze to the international crisis of halted Ukrainian exports. Western negligence has not only led to widespread famine, but it has also allowed Putin to create a devastating narrative of political propaganda in which millions will starve as unknown casualties of a senseless war. 

France and the Presidency of the Council of the European Union

On January 1st, 2022, France took over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. During difficult times, the country has been preparing for the presidency since 2017, but its agenda has had to be revised as the world continues to face ongoing challenges. France will be presiding for six months, until July 1st  2022. But with the French elections right around the corner, the future of the Council of the European Union remains unknown. Current French President Emmanuel Macron waited until the last day to become a formal candidate for the election, which will be held in April, just weeks from now. 

The last country to preside over the Council of the European Union was Slovenia. The country’s six months’ program was based around one common theme: resilience. Faced with the pandemic and a prolonged economic crisis throughout Europe, Slovenia developed a plan called “Next Generation EU”. This recovery plan was and still is an opportunity for countries that have suffered from the pandemic to emerge stronger, to transform their economies, to create jobs and opportunities. One of the main goals of Slovenia's Presidency was to ensure safety and stability in neighboring countries of the European Union, especially the Balkans. 

The Council of the European Union represents the interests of the 27 member states in respect to the European Commission and Parliament. Emmanuel Macron, French president since 2017, spoke on January 19 in a speech for the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The French president presented his objectives for the presidency of the Council of European Union to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, mentioning a reform of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new alliance between the European Union and Africa, the future of the Balkans or the relationship with Russia or the United Kingdom. 

The country is taking the presidency in difficult times, with the ongoing pandemic and challenges that nations across the European Union have been facing over the last two years. Additionally, the French elections are right around the corner, and Macron only recently became an official candidate for these elections, seeking a second term. However, the outcome of these elections remains a mystery, which leaves the future of both France and the Council of the European Union unknown. 

France has prepared its six-month program detailing the priorities and guidelines for the presidency of the Council of the European Union. The program for the French Presidency has three ambitions: a more sovereign Europe, a new European model for growth, and a humane Europe. The guidelines of the Presidency are in line with the work carried out by the Slovenian Presidency, as well as the broader framework of the Trio Presidency programme prepared with the future Czech and Swedish Presidencies.

Emmanuel Macron has expressed strong ambitions for this mandate, but his objectives and his detailed agenda could be disrupted by the Covid-19 crisis, the presidential election, and different global issues such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, the sanitary crisis in France is only now getting better, still hundreds of thousands of new cases appear every day. Vaccines being mandatory, the situation has improved and the country will soon be lifting the mask mandate, but citizens have expressed their discontent with the rules that were set up to mitigate the effects of the virus on individuals. Additionally, the elections, like any other elections, have created a tense situation in the country, as the future of France remains unknown. Many current candidates, such as Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour have created a lot of divide in the country, as their ideologies are very different from the ones of other candidates such as Valérie Pécresse, or the current French president, Emmanuel Macron. 

The first ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a more sovereign Europe. In a tweet, Macron shares “A sovereign Europe is first and foremost a Europe capable of controlling its borders.” The programme calls for a reform of the Schengen area, the aim is to strengthen this area and to “create a political steering of border control and an emergency support mechanism in case of crisis” as Emmanuel Macron stated in his tweet on December 9th, 2021. 

Protecting European borders will also allow for a greater control of the migratory crisis, and improve the asylum policy for the many refugees who seek safety in countries of the European Union. France also has the goal to strengthen relations with Africa, as it is one of Macron’s priorities since the beginning of this mandate. Additionally, this first ambition of France has the aim to build a stronger Europe, by its action for the prosperity and stability of its neighbors, in particular by its commitment to the Western Balkans, which follows the goal of Slovenia's presidency. 

The second ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a new European model for growth. Most countries in Europe have been greatly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has created economic issues throughout countries in the European Union. France has set the goal to make Europe a land of production, to create jobs and opportunities for European citizens. This growth model aims to help countries get out of the current economic crisis that they may be facing or have faced over the last two years, helping them in their growth and development, to make Europe a land of prosperity and endless opportunities. 

The third and last ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a more humane Europe. Emmanuel Macron emphasized in its agenda the importance of having a Europe that works with one another, and that listens to the concerns expressed by its citizens through the Conference on the Future of Europe. Over the last few years, a variety of domestic and international affairs such as the economic crisis, the pandemic, or the migrant crisis have divided not only France, but Europe. For this Presidency, French President Emmanuel Macron set the goal of a humane Europe, that is committed to fighting discrimination and securing a future for the next generation.

While the program for the French Presidency has three ambitions, it also has a variety of priorities that the country would like to address throughout its Presidency. Its three priorities are: the introduction of a minimum wage throughout the European Union, the regulation of digital giants and the creation of a carbon tax on products imported into Europe according to their environmental impact.

President Emmanuel Macron said he's in favor of legislation on a minimum wage for all EU nations. Fair wages that ensure a decent standard of living are one of the principles of the European Social Charter. For France, the introduction of minimum wage is aimed at increasing living standards throughout Europe. The introduction of minimum wage will also enhance working conditions in Europe. Having a set minimum wage across European countries would also allow for more fairness, as every worker has the right to a fair wage that guarantees them a decent standard of living. 

The regulation of digital giants is another one of the priorities of France’s Presidency. Their priority will be economic regulation and accountability of digital platforms, especially in the face of hate speech, with legislation on digital services and markets. Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said that “digital giants are not just nice companies with whom we need to cooperate, they are rivals, rivals of the states that do not respect our economic rules, which must therefore be regulated.” Regulating these digital giants will allow for terrorist threats, and hate speech to be limited, and regulated.

The last priority of the French’s Presidency is in regard to the environment. Their priority will be the creation of a carbon price at the borders of the European Union on imported products. The environmental crisis is an issue that every country is facing, it is a team effort to combat climate change. Through the creation of a carbon price, France hopes to help the environment in the long-run. 

Emmanuel Macron's relationship with the Council of the European Union is important now more than ever. The European Union is facing difficult challenges ever since Russia invaded Ukraine on Thursday February 24th. It has been the duty of Macron to take the role of a mediator in this conflict. He has talked with both Putin, Russia’s president, and Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president. Over the last few weeks, Macron has demonstrated a great sense of diplomacy, as he attempts to initiate a dialogue on NATO’s role in Europe and Ukraine. Many have said that Emmanuel Macron may benefit from the situation in Eastern Ukraine. His diplomacy has benefitted him politically, he appears to have shown great strength as he and other world leaders are attempting to solve this conflict.

Emmanuel Macron’s agenda advocates for subjects that will be at the heart of the French presidential campaign, that is just a few weeks from now. As France is set to preside the Council of the European Union until July 1st 2022, the French elections are at the center of the attention, as they have divided the country now more than ever. With many candidates with differing viewpoints and the future of France remains unknown, and so does the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, that the country is presiding until July 2022, way after the elections have taken place. 

French president Emmanuel Macron is well aware of the challenges that he will encounter and has encountered while presiding the Council of the European Union. Three months is a very short amount of time to make a meaningful change, considering that we are unaware of what will happen with the presidency of the Council of the European Union  after the elections. 

The question of postponing the French elections by six months had arisen, as a means to not disrupt the presidency of the Council of the European Union, but Emmanuel Macron finally decided against it. A way to show his commitment to Europe in the middle of a presidential campaign. According to many, the French agenda is more than ambitious, but many wonder what will happen with the elections, if Macron is not reelected, it could change a lot of things, lead to new discussions, and affect the future presidencies of the Council of the European Union.

Like any other elections, the French elections have been tense, the final list of candidates was only recently finalized with a total of 12 candidates, the future of France and of Europe remains a mystery. Many fear that the next president will want to change things for the future, having opposing views with Macron, meaning that everything that France will have done until the elections will go to waste, especially future plans that Macron will have set up for future presidencies. 

French citizens are currently divided, as elections are just a few weeks away. As of March 4th 2022, 12 candidates have reached the 500 sponsorships needed to become an official candidate at the French presidential elections. President Macron had already reached the 500 sponsorships needed before he even became an official candidate. But many other official candidates had struggled to reach the 500 sponsorships needed. Indeed, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour and Christiane Taubira were worried about not obtaining the 500 sponsorships. 

The 12 candidates for these french elections are: Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Yannick Jadot, Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Melanchon, Philippe Poutou, Eric Zemmour, Valérie Pécresse, Emmanuel Macron, Anne Hidalgo, Nathalie Arthaud, Fabien Roussel and Jean Lassalle. These candidates are from different parties, but their ideologies have not divided France as much as Eric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen’s ideals have.  

Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen are two candidates from the far right. Marine Le Pen party called National Rally is a party that since its creation, is above all an anti-immigration party, which advocates a significant reduction in legal immigration and the protection of French identity, as well as stricter control of illegal immigration. Eric Zemmour, candidate from the far right party is called Reconquête. Both Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen have divided France by their ideologies that are very different from the ones of current French President, Emmanuel Macron. 

Marine Le Pen ran against President Macron during the elections in 2017. These two candidates have struggled to reach their 500 sponsorships, and many fear that there is a chance that they will be elected. This will not only divide France but also Europe, as their goals are very different from the ones set by the current agenda that has been set up for the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union. For example, one of the main priorities of the French agenda is to protect European borders and create stability in the European Union; however, Zemmour wishes to build EU border wall to fight undocumented migration. Many are opposed to this idea, as it could potentially create instability and further divide in the European Union. 

The elections will occur right in the middle of France’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, with ministers and a president who will have to campaign at some point, an effective French presidency of less than 3 months is expected. If there is a changeover in May, the new President and its ministers will have to take over the current files on the fly, but this may lead to conflicts with the current agenda, other members of the Council of the European Union, and other nations.

France’s agenda for the presidency of the Council of the European Union is very ambitious and progressive. However, the uncertainty around the French presidential elections may give rise to more challenges, and discussions after the presidency is over. As of right now, the fate of France and the Council is in the hands of the French voters.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité...et “Un Passe Sanitaire?” How COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements Forced France to Reconcile its Values

The ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced nations across the world to examine their societal failings, as governments worldwide struggle to balance the need to protect their citizens with the need for personal freedom and a strong economy. While the United States experienced the ravages of the pandemic and the anger of its citizens early on, many European countries succeeded in holding the pandemic, and their citizens' tempers, at bay. France proves to be the perfect example of this phenomenon; the implementation of a strict lockdown policy, the “confinement” which closed businesses and schools, but also limited the periods in which individuals could be outside of their homes throughout the day, all succeeded in lessening the death toll compared with the United States and United Kingdom. 

However, the French government’s recent decision to implement vaccine requirements and vaccination proof has brought about tension and protest towards the government, previously unseen throughout the pandemic. For the first time, the French must question if their beloved national values align with the government’s actions. 

The “passe sanitaire” or French health pass is a compulsory health statement that proves the vaccinated status of an individual, or a negative COVID-19 test, within the past seventy two hours. The passe sanitaire also resembles similar “vaccine passports” seen across the world as both local and national governments attempt to achieve higher vaccination rates and protect their citizens. The passe sanitaire works in conjunction with France’s reopening plan for its economy and as part of the greater European Union’s border health control, a collaborative effort between EU member states to ensure that citizens are not bringing COVID-19 with them to various countries .  

Implemented for several reasons, the passe sanitaire has worked to increase the vaccination rates in France, through the establishment of the passe sanitaire as a ticket into everyday French life. A passe sanitaire is required for entry into restaurants, movie theaters, train and airplane travel, and the majority of public indoor spaces. French president, Emmanuel Macron, promised French citizens that vaccines would never become obligatory, with the exception of individuals in certain industries, however the pass sanitaire can feel obligatory since it serves as an entryway into French society. 

The French government’s decision to implement the pass sanitaire resembles other government’s decisions to create legislation that does not necessarily require vaccination, but “nudges” the population to receive the vaccine. Known as the Nudge Theory, this term describes how a population can be swayed to make decisions that are in their best interest through minor government reforms and policies that encourage citizens to make the choice that is in their best interest. By requiring a passe sanitaire to freely go about the activities of everyday life, the French government is nudging their population towards vaccination. 

The passe sanitaire can easily be described as a success. Since its implementation on July 12th 2021, vaccinations have increased dramatically, with over one million French citizens registering for vaccine appointments the day the passe sanitaire was announced. Vaccination rates rose dramatically in groups that were previously less likely to be vaccinated, such as adolescents and young adults. However despite the passe sanitaire’s success at achieving higher vaccination rates and imposing COVID-19 safety restrictions, the outlash and anger towards the government reveals that a deeper issue is lurking within French society. 

France’s famous revolutionary motto: Liberté, Égalité, et Fraternité (liberty, equality, and brotherhood) is a well known staple of French culture, so much so that evoking the phrase can appear cliché. However, the French mindset surrounding these three key pillars of society has shaped French values. Therefore, the implementation of the pass sanitaire can be viewed as a direct affront to this motto and the purpose it serves. 

Created in 1793 during the first French Revolution, the motto signified the end of the monarchy, the creation of French unity, and the establishment of democracy. The establishment of ‘Liberté’ drew from older notions of liberties, or the exemptions from rules or regulations certain groups within society could experience. Therefore liberty did not just signify freedom, but freedom from the choice to engage or not. Liberty did not just mean personal freedom, but also the right to exist in one's own space, away from the world at large, the acknowledgement of a separation between the individual and society. Maintaining this concept of liberty has been crucial to the French identity. Liberty is a dearly prized concept in French society, but according to a significant portion of the population the passe sanitaire is threatening to destroy French liberty and personal choice. Although the passe sanitaire does not make COVID-19 vaccinations a requirement, it does limit the participation of the unvaccinated in everyday life. Despite the obvious health benefits of the vaccine, at both an individual and national level, critics of the passe sanitaire believe that it threatens individual liberty and suggests the signs of a tyrannical government at work, which leaves the French with one obvious option: protest. 

Following the requirement of the passe sanitaire, hundreds of protests have sprung up around France, in all regions of the country as citizens gather in the streets from all sides of the political spectrum. The protests have remained largely peaceful, however they have revealed specific issues within French society and feelings toward President Macron that suggest a likely change in national interest towards the government.Widespread protests are not a new concept in France, and have played a role in the national identity since the original French Revolution, when the Bastille Prison was liberated by French citizens in 1789. The legacy of the event shaped French society for centuries to come, with monumental shifts in society and culture often happening as a direct result of protests. The protests and uprisings of 1968 turned into a cultural battle between Charles De Gaulle’s traditional French government and the anger of university students in Paris; these protests then transformed into national rallies, and the events of that year would witness a dramatic change in all levels of life, with government reforms, societal norms, and workers rights all undergoing massive development. The 1990’s saw successful results at the hands of French protesters when then prime minister, Alain Juppé, attempted to reform the French social security system, only to quickly back down after three weeks of protests.  More recently, the Yellow Vest movement in France has sparked strikes and protests against Macron’s pension reform and tax breaks for the wealthy, as rural pockets of France and poorer regions express outrage over what they believe are unfair benefits to urban elites. 

Unlike many other western countries, the French frequently achieve tremendous success when protesting, at both a cultural and legislative level. The French government has routinely been brought to its knees by the outrage of the French citizens, which has allowed protesting to become a key part of national identity. Taking to the streets is a way to ensure societal change and to prevent the government from becoming an authoritative, tyrannical regime; protesting is not solely a way to demonstrate outrage, as is frequently the case in allied countries like the United States and United Kingdom, but to shape policy and norms. However, the statistics of the protests would suggest that the majority of French citizens either tolerate or support the implementation of the passe sanitaire. In a country that is known for protesting, the large crowds do not suggest the same national anger as would be the case in other countries. Instead, it appears that there is a growing understanding of the importance of the passe sanitaire as a necessity for daily life and to protect others from COVID-19.

Each protestor has their own reasons for protesting, however there are common shared sentiments. The overlying feeling of the protesters is worry and fear that the passe sanitaire will take away from the personal liberty awarded to each French citizen by ultimately forcing them to get vaccinated. The concept of forced vaccination goes against both the nature of an individual’s right to choose and the right to privacy when it comes to the government’s knowledge of their citizens' health. France is a notoriously private country, and this national value is witnessed in everyday aspects of French culture and law. The simple tradition of closing one's shutters or the government’s refusal to collect data on the racial breakdown of their citizens both reflect an immense desire for privacy. However, issues over personal liberty and privacy are not the only reason driving the French to protest.

The political anger expressed at the Yellow Vest protests towards President Macron and the French government has only grown, and now anger at the implementation of the passe sanitaire is directly targeted towards the government. There is a great distrust and suspicion over the government’s decision to implement the passe sanitaire, with protestors feeling as though the French government is using the passe sanitaire as a means of control, as democracy threatens to be replaced by tyranny. Frustration over the passe sanitaire has manifested itself into different formats, as witnessed in the many protests. The use of symbols from history as a tactic to shock and inspire onlookers is not new, but recent instances reveal that protesters in France are frequently linking the implementation of the passe sanitaire and Macron with Hitler. Images of President Macron’s face embossed with a Hitler-esque moustache or the pinning of a yellow star onto one's shirt suggest a deliberate attempt to connect modern events with historical ones. Despite the blatant offensiveness of these actions, as well as the lack of similarity between the COVID-19 pandemic and the Nazi Regime, the overall effect is haunting and upsetting, suggesting a deep anger towards the French political establishment. 

A quick analysis of the multitude of opinions held reveals the true complexity of feelings surrounding the passe sanitaire. The protestors at these events come from all sides of the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right, a sharp contrast from protests in the United States which are often strictly bipartisan. Interviews with protestors from all sides reveal one shared fear: the threat of authoritarian government policy and the loss of ‘liberté’. One protester, who defines herself as a libertarian and anti-fascist activist, expressed outrage over seeing fellow passe sanitaire protesters associate the vaccination requirements with anti-semitic symbols and carrying the flags of the far-right in support. However despite the shared anger over the health pass and the decision to take to the streets together, there is little unity between the two groups. A far left protester described the separation of the two groups, saying: “We already knew it, but it confirms that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend…” The primary motivations of the far-left protesters appear to be fear over the threat of a tyrannical government, and fear that the far-right will dominate this movement and turn issues of vaccination into a political issue that will serve to benefit them in the upcoming presidential election. The motivations of the far-right also reveal issues with the threat of a tyrannical government, but these protesters are also critiquing the French government’s response to COVID-19 in general, and their frustration at Macron’s Centrist policies. Emmanuel Hirsch, a medical ethics professor lamented over the government’s issue with implementing the passe santiare in an interview with Le Monde. Hirsch claims that Macron did not properly reflect upon the implementation of the passe sanitaire, claiming that this initiative could have been used to create a larger conversation about rebuilding trust in the government and in science. Instead, the passe sanitaire has only served to deepen the tensions between powerful institutions and French citizens. 

The lack of unity at these protests reveal that the French protestors have yet to establish a clear position on the passe sanitaire, simply using it as a symbol to fight against their own personal complaints against the government. The passe sanitaire may indeed be limiting France’s concept of liberté, but the greater issue is one of distrust and fear towards the government, something a vaccine cannot fix. 

Macron’s Ideal France: Free Speech or Blasphemy?

Muslims across many parts of the world remain in disbelief after hearing President of France, Emmanuel Macron’s  problematic comments in early October pertaining to characterizations of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous to Muslims, and calling Islam a religion that is in crisis all over the world today’ as he unveils plan to defend secularism. Comments as such have prompted wide-scale protests to occur in many Muslim countries ranging from Bangladesh to Turkey, with placards demanding an apology from Macron. However, it is critical to consider how this is not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of characterizing the Prophet Muhammad and breeding fear and distrust, allowing anti-Muslim sentiments to manifest through censorship and gradual political repression of Muslims in France. This pattern thus has led to small and large scale terrorist attacks, perpetuating even more of a divide between Macron’s vision of secularism and tolerance and acceptance of Islam within the country. While another recent statement from Macron stated that he understands the frustration of Muslims over the displays of these cartoons, these words and the continuation of the Prophet being used as satirical relief simply does not demonstrate  the empathy needed for French and Muslim communities. The French in wanting to uphold secularist ideals have perpetuated a common belief that Islam is opposed to secularism and modernity, while an overarching argument held by Muslim communities argues that the Prophet Muhammad’s satirical presence is disrespectful and furthter contributes to the Islamophobia in France. This paper will breakdown a recent knife attack which prompted Macron’s comments earlier in October, the Charlie Hebdo publications of the Prophet, as well as the societal norms and legalistic steps that have reinforced anti-Muslim sentiments, concluding with what actions have taken in place thus far in Muslim communities across the globe and what practices must be implemented for substantial change to occur. 

Charlie Hebdo and Free Speech: 

Charlie Hebdo,  a left-wing, anti-establishment newspaper is part of a tradition of serious satire in France. While its publications have a reputation for mocking everything — powerful politicians, pop culture, religion — there has always been a particularity for lampooning Islam and Muslims, often with raunchy cartoons. The newspaper’s interest in depicting the Prophet has stemmed back to 2011 when it showed a cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.” Despite the fact a firebomb was targeted at the publishing building, the company relentlessly went forth with reproducing the image with other caricatures in a special edition distributed with one of the country’s leading newspapers. Over the years, caricatures have varied in narrative, such as of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb; which could be easily interpreted as a direct attack on Muslims as a group and disregard for Islam. Many Muslims have objected towards any representation of Allah or Mohammad, or to irreverent treatment of the Quran, and such incidents have inflamed protests in the past, which have escalated to violent methods. 

Among Muslims who live in France to the French government, there has been a spectrum of opinions; whether to interpret these cartoons as offensive and Islamophobic or as an example of free speech and free media. Debates on freedom of expression are difficult exercises, often characterized by equivocation and self-contradiction. To answer the question if these specific publications are really blasphemy, it is quite simple: Mohammed is a well-respected figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him as an attack on their Muslim identity. Along with a tradition of not depicting God or the Prophet, part of the offense may also come from the fact that the cartoons can appear explicitly designed to provoke. Thus, publications that print such cartoons may often be attempting to provoke an extreme response in order to make a statement about who belongs in European secular culture. At the time of the attack, the French government responded with an uptake in a military presence throughout the country along with comments made by the government that they are at war with radical Islam. 

Have Laws in France Helped to Alleviate the Situation? 

Prior to the publications in Charlie Hebdo and the nonviolent and violent responses it has invoked over the years, there have been protracted debates about the compatibility of Western values and Islamic ethos. I argue that the consideration of controversial policies continues a pattern of stigmatizing Muslims as a group within the country. One of the laws introduced in 2010, banning the “Niqab,” a full covering that some Muslim women choose to wear, only leaving the eyes exposed and can be fined up to 150 euros ($172). It is critical to note here as well that laws as such have not been excluded to just France. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have passed similar bans on face-covering garments, thus displaying an overall apprehension towards specific religious symbols.  

The law perpetuated opinions that, from a security standpoint, it would not do anything, but rather infringe upon a person’s right to manifest their religious beliefs in a specific way. Not only did this hinder the  right to practicing Islam in a specific way, but there has been an increase in divisive rhetoric of “us versus them” among secular what right-wing consider “pure” French citizens and French Muslims who have citizenship. It is these Muslims living in France who categorize themselves as ‘French Muslims’ as their primary form of belonging, but an identification bolstered by ambivalent interpellation as, on the one hand, they are subject to suspect by members of the French nation under the policing and surveillance procedures of France's crackdown on Secularist ideals. People have recalled experiences of  receiving direct insults, threats and even physical violence towards them if they carried on wearing the full face veil. This sense of isolation among Muslims living in France also specifically comes from the fact that ministries of education have been more lenient with allowing other religious symbols, such as necklaces with the Star of David, etc. Not only has this created a divisive environment, but unrest and fear among Muslim Youth who are trying to uphold their religion’s beliefs and visions of their parents as well as assimilate in society. People narrate their experiences as being seen in a “negative light, feeling judged and an overall lack of trust” towards them. France, dating back to the colonial period has been for the most part more conservative than other countries. It sees itself as the heart of European secularism, hence immigrants are thrown the options of assimilation with the French system or isolation. 

Over the years, this has manifested as many immigrant families, specifically their children, feeling the brunt of rigid secularism. There has been a law since 1905 that separates church and state. The original objective with this law was to regulate religion, in this specific context, symbols attached to the Christian faith; projecting an overall notion that religious beliefs were inferior thinking and a form of alienation. The historicization of this law is generally rooted in the longstanding idea that faith should be confined to the home and not public and political matters, a tactic to promote supremacy of the state and state leaders. However, it is ironic to examine that while the intention of the law was to prevent social alienation, in a contemporary context it has justified behaviors in alienating people who wish to practice their religion publicly with peace and respect. There is a growing number of Muslims within France who feel that the bannings towards religious symbols are not done on equal terms, but are vocal representations of growing islamophobia in the country and the act of adhering to rigid and exclusionary ideologies as a scapegoat. Muslims don't often fit into this cookie-cutter model of what it means to be French, with the cultural and religious liberty of Muslims entrapped by the Western European set-up of institutions, thus positing a loss of respect and empathy for majority and minority communities within France. 

What is Being Done: The Muslim Community Steps Up 

The culmination of rhetoric represented through France’s legal fixtures, coupled with Macron’s comments over the years pertaining to Islam, and Charlie Hebdo have triggered a variety of responses from Muslims. On October 16th, there was a knife attack outside a French school in which a man of Chechen origin beheaded Samuel Paty, a teacher who had shown pupils the cartoons of the Prophet in a civics lesson, justifying that the pictures were examples of freedom of speech and expression. France has had multiple incidents of displaying cartoons of the Prophet, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In a statement this past Tuesday, Macron paid tribute to Paty, describing him as a “quiet hero” dedicated to instilling the democratic values within young students. Members of the Muslim community in France have consistently denounced the French government’s support of these cartoons being published and shown on a number of platforms and schools, describing them as going against the precepts of their religion. The upsurge of these recent most attacks have further charged the already anti-Muslim and anti-Islam atmosphere. 

The perpetuation of anti-Muslim rhetoric has prompted  further effort onpart of the Muslims in Europe to ascertain the impeccability of their community. While there have been bolder and violent responses, the other side of the spectrum shows protests as a means to legitimize the voices of Muslims. Protests with up to 40,000 people rallied in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, and many other countries condemning Macron’s comments, so much as to wishing to boycott French products in their countries. Arguably, the mainstream complacency of Muslim voices was disrupted as the demand for active public visibility by them rises. The demand for equal representation and visibility in the public sphere by Muslim Europeans had brought conflicts of interest to the surface. These conflict of interests include a growing need among Muslim communities to defend themselves and the religion they practice; for others to recognize the respect every Muslim has for Prophet Muhammad, and an overarching consensus to not be looked upon as enemies of the European social fabric, but as friends, students, and neighbors; everyday citizens just like the next person. 

The Future of France: What Lies Ahead?

While there have been varied responses towards France’s position on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to the upsurge of what is considered as a rise in Islamic radicalism in France, the path towards change must be addressed. European Muslims want to be assured that they are not marginalized, excluded or considered as second class citizens. Institutional and legal alienation must cease. In the backdrop of this, the potency of Muslim radicalism and the radical need to find social space to assert their voice will die a natural death, if the circumstances of socio-economic marginalization, dislocation, political and economic disenfranchisement are suppressed- if not entirely eliminated. There is potential to uphold a secularist ideal within France but still remain respectful of every majority and minority community. Islam remains a social capital tying up an estimated 30 million currently in Europe. Countries such as France have served as beacons of hope for Muslim refugees wanting to start new lives in their country, but as analyzed above, with a number of people who remain on a pendulum of creating a better life for themselves and their families and lingering feelings of alienation, isolation, and antagonization towards their beliefs. Muslims wish to settle permanently in Europe, with the vast majority wanting to live in peace, that European integration policies have been erratic and inconsistent and that only a tiny minority of Muslims are engaged in radical activities. The work of policymakers, then, is to figure out how to prevent these individuals from acting impulsively, on the basis of some unpredictable trigger. This can only be done if there is a motivation and sense of need to build belonging that will prevent extremists from feeling destructive. If they feel alienated from their society and feel they don’t belong there, then they can also feel that other people deserve to suffer or die, manifested through small and large scale terrorist attacks. If anything, differences should be celebrated among people, not highlighted in order to create tension and heightened polarization. The contribution to dialogue in order to cease these tensions is through education. Our generation plays a critical role in enforcing intermingling and true understanding and empathy among people in society regardless of race, gender, and religion. We need to promote the dignity and honor of those around us, to encourage interfaith dialogue, and understand others. We are all part of the larger journey to understand one another’s experiences and respect one another, but how and who we learn this from, has a great effect on our efforts. 

The Rise of the Far-Right in France: Understanding How National Rally Leader, Marine Le Pen, Has Used Tragedy of Recent Terrorist Attacks as a Political Weapon

In 2015, France was rocked by six deadly terrorist attacks, mostly notably the Charlie Hebdo attack and the November 13-14 attacks, that etched a permanent mark onto the nation’s psyche. Yet five years later, the effects of terrorism continue to plague France, demonstrated by the recent beheading of Samuel Paty, a french school teacher killed for showing his students a depiction of the prophet Muhommad in class, and the stabbings in a church in Nice just days later. 

Samuel Paty was a dedicated school teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine who taught at a middle school in a suburb of Paris. Paty taught a class on freedom of speech and expression to his middle school students. During one of these lessons, he showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad created by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Following this lesson, parents at the school expressed disapproval towards Paty’s actions, and posts on various social media sites were created to discuss Paty’s behaviour. Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov was an eighteen year old Muslim Russian refugee who learned of Paty’s actions through social media, and beheaded him with in the street. After murdering Paty, Anzorov was shot and killed by police. As a result of Paty’s murder, over ten people have been charged in connection to the crime. 

However, now France finds itself in a new predicament. As French President, Emmanuel Macron, struggles to hold the country together amidst both the COVID-19 pandemic and recent terrorist attacks, France’s political far-right is pursuing this terrorist attack as an opportunity to gain political support. 

Understanding the rise of the National Rally 

The National Rally (formally known as the National Front) is a far right political party headed by Marine le Pen in France, known for its controversy, racism, and xenophobia from their many critics. Now, the National Rally is using the recent terrorist attacks as a political tactic, hoping to gain voters who have turned away from Macron’s approach, following his widely criticized pension reform which led to intense protesting and riots. 

Although the National Rally has played a role in French politics for decades, its image and political success, in the form of electoral votes and political representation in government, has increased in recent years. First founded in 1972, by Jean-Marie le Pen, father of Marine le Pen, it was a party of disgruntled veterans, known for its anti-semitism, sexism, racism, and shared many similarities with former European fascist governments. The party formerly known as the National Front struggled to gain traction for decades, regarded by the French public as both a joke and a controversy; the party has been considered by many French citizens as an embarrassing example of a political group that cannot embrace the values that many French citizens prioritize, such as European integration within the European Union, equality for all French citizens, and immigration. Everything changed after Marine le Pen replaced her father as leader of the National Rally, ushering in a new era and image for the party. Under the guidance of Marine le Pen the party evolved from a national joke to a dominating player within French politics. 

Over time Marine le Pen reformed the party, leaving behind the Holocaust denial, sexism, and overt anti-semitism, replacing it with new issues: immigration, the eurozone, and a constant tirade against Muslims. Many of the former issues campaigned for by the party are now considered too far-right and too extreme; by focusing on more present issues that appear in current events, Marine le Pen has created a modern image and a party that fits into France’s current political climate. 

  Not only did Marine le Pen replace the party’s key issues, but she also adapted its political strategy, in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. The National Rally worked to appeal to young people and women, two groups largely missing from its previous audience. The party found strongholds in rural areas and areas where unemployment is high and voters feel left behind by modern France, such as the Northern mining regions and the Southern coast of France. Studying the political psychology behind Marine le Pen’s supporters reveals that many of them feel ignored and betrayed by the modernization and urbanization of France. As cities such as Paris and Marseille become more diverse, there is an increasing sense amongst National Rally supporters that France is losing its “Frenchness.” A concept that manifests itself in the smallest ways, such as an interview at an event for the National Rally where supporters proudly explain that at this event they are only selling French crepes, no kebabs. As France becomes more diverse, there is a sense amongst some French voters that their identity and pride is being robbed from them, a sentiment that has propelled them into the arms of the National Rally. 

 The party’s creation of National Rally youth groups created a new generation of dedicated voters, devoting themselves to the party’s ideals. Fully embracing local politics allowed the party to achieve new ground. By using mayoral races to establish control in small cities across France, the National Rally has discovered how dominating the mayoral office in one small city will eventually lead to control throughout the region. The prioritization of local level politics has allowed voters to create strong ties to the party, something the National Rally has used to help them gain access to bigger positions. 

The 2017 French presidential election marked a defining moment for the party. Although Macron succeeded in his youthful and energetic campaign, the National Rally achieved unprecedented electoral success. Despite Macron winning by a large thirty point margin, the National Rally achieved 35% of the vote, demonstrating their success from a fringe political party to a serious mainstream one. Yet Macron’s optimism, and his ability to cast himself as an outsider and newcomer against the culture of elitism and nepotism that Marine le Pen represents, allowed him to succeed in the end. In contrast to Macron’s upbeat rallies that took a cue from Obama’s 2008 election campaign, the darker undertones of fear and anger in Le Pen’s rallies just could not compete. Yet most notably, Marine le Pen refused to back down following her defeat. She vowed to strengthen her party even more, through widening their ever-growing base and changing their tactics. 

In the three years following the 2017 presidential election Marine le Pen has held true to her promise. She officially changed the name from the National Front to the National Rally, echoing a further disconnect from the party of her father. The party also found success in the 2018 European Parliament elections, where the National Rally defeated Macron’s centrist party, winning 23% of the vote. With frustration over Macron growing, a pandemic with no end in sight, and an increase in terrorist attacks, Marine le Pen appears poised to dominate the political landscape in France. 

Response to terrorist attacks 

Following the brutal murder of Samuel Paty, President Macron gave a series of speeches that caused outrage across part of the world. Macron promised to use harsh measures against Islamic extremism. Macron’s administration has closed mosques and banned certain Islamic groups. In his speeches, Macron has referenced the importance of France’s laws and culture surrounding freedom of speech; he has also praised French secularism. Although his remarks garnered support amongst the French public, they have struck a chord with the Islamic world. 

In Turkey, President Erdogan claimed Macron has “lost his way,” leading to a diplomatic argument over Macron’s response. Meawhile Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Kahn, reported that Macron chose "to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam rather than the terrorists." Outrage over Macron’s remarks has led to a boycott of French goods in Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and Asia. Anti-French protests have all seen an uptick, where images of Macron’s face are frequently defiled. 

Macron has also been criticized for alienating the almost six million Muslims currently living in France (the largest Muslim population in all of Europe). Reports of French Muslims feeling afraid and unwelcomed in their own country has fueled anger towards Macron’s recent statements and policies on terrorism. 

By far the most controversial aspect of Macron’s recent statements is his suggestion that Islam be enlightened so as to better fit into secular France. In recent years France has used their secular power to ban burquas worn by Muslim women. Now, Macron is pushing for more compromise amongst French Muslims, such as decreasing funding given to French Muslim communities. France is a proud secular country, one that sees separation of church and state as a marker of progress and modernity. While this statement has been regarded by some as simply an extension of French imperialism banning non-western practices, Macron claims that his remarks were misinterpreted; he was only only trying to prevent the radicalisation of Islam that was the motivator behind many recent French terrorist attacks. However, critics of Macron claim that their interpretation of Macron’s statement was correct based on Macron’s recent proposal to reform Islam in France. Macron’s proposals include dissolution of many French Muslim associations, a decreasing of funds sent to Muslim communities, and a certificate training programs for imams (a leader of Muslim worshippers). All of these policies are aimed at reforming Islam in a way that best suits French society, and to prevent the radicalization of Islam that is behind many recent terrorist attacks. 

Yet despite Macron’s response being harsly criticized by many across the world, it appears as though many French citizens resonate with his opinions following the murder of Samuel Paty. According to a poll of French citizens following Paty’s death by the Institute for Opinion and Marketing Studies in France and Internationally over 87% of French citizens believe that French secularism is at risk. Adding to that, 89% of French citizens believe the risk of terrorism is very high. Perhaps the most shocking results of this study found that 79% believe that Islam has declared war on France. The results from the survey also vary based on political party. Supporters of the National Rally showed much higher percentages in responses to the questions above. 

Marine le Pen’s Response

Knowing both the controversy surrounding Macron’s statements and the current opinion of the public, it has come at no surprise that Marine le Pen would use this tragedy to appeal to the French people. 

Marine le Pen has spent much of the last decade critiquing the role of Islam in France. She has made frequent pushes to end immigration for people from Islamic countries into France, notoriously stating, “We support putting a stop to immigration.” Le Pen has also been an outspoken critic of the burqa in France, showing disdain for any form of head covering worn by Muslim women. Following the attack, Marine le Pen proposed a ban on headscarves worn by Muslim women in public. 

In response to Paty’s murder, Le Pen declared that France was at war against Islam as an ideology, potentially hoping to draw in more supporters with her view of Islam as the enemy. Indeed, metaphors of war are now a crucial part of Marine le Pen’s vocabulary following Paty’s murder, which can easily be seen as a political tactic. Marine le Pen declared that France was in need of wartime legislation against the force that is Islam. Her statements are not new or suprising, but with every passing terrorist attack Marine le Pen can be seen eagerly speaking out against the dangers of Islam and immigration, two her of party’s most defining issues. However this time Marine le Pen’s response appears even more calculated, mostly likely given the upcoming election in 2022. 

A Chance for Victory 

After the National Rally’s shocking success in the 2017 election, and their wins in the 2018 parliamentary elections, many members of the National Rally believe that the 2022 presidential election will finally Fbring them the victory they so desperately want. Knowing this, it is impossible to view Marine le Pen’s recent statements and not see them as clever tactic, designed to sway voters who are already fearful over the dangers of terrorism and radical Islamists. 

Le Pen hopes to capitalize on the key issues within her party, Islam and immigration, and with recent terrorist attacks on peoples minds, these issues will most likely become crucial talking points throughout the election. Supporters of the National Rally have reason to believe in a victory for Marine le Pen. Macron has not proven himself to be the young, enigmatic leader he appeared as during his campaign. Economic issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Yellow Vest Movement in 2019, the series of protests against pension reform and widespread economic issues that have plagued France, have all damaged both Macron’s base and his popularity. Now, with anger over recent terrorist attacks that show no signs of stopping, Macron’s once charming charisma and centrist views look less appealing to French voters. Perhaps this time the National Rally’s views will appeal to the majority of French voters, leading to a victory for Marine le Pen in 2022. 

Managing Multilingualism: Preserving the Linguistic Plurality

The reality of the current world is that, though there are a few dominant languages such as English, Spanish, or Arabic, oftentimes not even a country’s borders will accurately reflect the diversity of humanity’s linguistic heritage. Even though the world is defined by nation-states, there are minorities in virtually every state who often speak distinct languages that need to be cherished in order to show respect for their culture and preserve an entire way of thinking. To address the representation of the less dominant languages within their states, different states take different approaches; however, these laws are often not enforced properly and some languages are still left ignored. Even in today’s liberal world order, which should encourage political and public representation, these languages are tragically seeing a decline in public representation and the number of speakers. Thus, it is beneficial to examine and improve upon the laws currently existing to regulate the inclusion of minority languages and work towards making a more inclusive, diverse, and unified society. 

National vs. Official Language

A number of states have different laws pertaining to the designation of an official language and a national language. The main distinction to be made between the official and national language is that the official language is the language often mandated by a state’s founding documents and the language used in government and official proceedings, as well as one expected to be used as a definite lingua franca among speakers of different languages in that society. The national language, on the other hand, is the language spoken by the majority, and it has come to be identified as a national symbol of a certain group of people to be a more general legal description of a nation. Depending on the composition of a state’s culture and population, the relationship a country should have towards its national and official language(s) should preserve unity and peace of the society while also appreciating and promoting its potential for linguistic plurality. 

One National and Official Language 

France is one country that, although it is seeing an increase of speakers of different languages residing within its borders, is still reliant on French as both its national and official language. This is not only stated in the Constitution but also reinforced through the Toubon Law of 1994, which came as a response to the increasing use of English. This law dictates that all government documents, education, and advertisements must be in French; thus the French language is seen as a defining aspect of the country and the nation and is largely necessary in order to navigate around one’s daily life. However, publishers are still allowed to publish their work in any language they wish, commercials may be translated into French through footnotes, packaging can have translations in other languages, and the laws mandating French in the public sphere are not to infringe on the private life. Thus, there is not a need for an absolute use of French; however, the fact that French must be ever-present and is both the official and national language makes it more difficult to maintain the use of other languages, as children are exposed to French in school and media and do not need to rely on any language their parents are potentially using as much. This leads to the loss of the language in the long run. The existence of French as an ever-present language, on the other hand, makes it unifying in nature, as it is agreed that this is one language everyone would use to express themselves. This approach provides cohesiveness to society as everyone can understand each other and feel a sense of belonging in France. 

French still has this purpose in a number of African countries as well, where it is not always a national, but often at least the official language used to unify the speakers of different languages living in the same country. This is the case in Rwanda where Kinyarwanda may be the national language, but French is used for official purposes. This may lead to French eventually overpowering and becoming the national language as well as the official, as it has happened in countries such as Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Togo, as noted by Faingold in “Language rights and language justice.” A similar destiny beheld countries like Costa Rica and Venezuela, where Spanish became both national and official because of the pressure to have a unifying language without sufficient regard for how that would reflect on the number of speakers of other languages. While this approach may be ideal when it comes to the creation of national unity through language, it can prove to be very aggressive and detrimental towards other, often pre-colonial languages of the region, thus reaffirming the status quo of the post-colonial world.

Regional Languages

Spain is an example of a country that has one national and official language, Spanish. However, unlike neighboring France that has French as its national and official language and does not emphasize the integrity of regional or minority languages, Spain’s autonomous regions of Catalonia and Basque Country allow an elevation of Catalan and Basque to languages of greater regional importance. Whereas France does not have these autonomous regions and does not prevent people from publishing in their own language, the autonomous status of Catalonia, as Cultural Policies and Trends explains, dictates translation of government documents into Catalan. This makes it easier to live within a region majorly composed of the speakers of Catalan with the use of Catalan in daily life and in public spaces such as schools, TV programs, stores, public transportation, etc. This designation of a language other than the main Spanish has contributed to the maintenance of--and even an increase in--the number of speakers of Catalan and Basque and has also led to much hostility. Constant pushes against the autonomy and linguistic freedom assigned to these regions persisted in the history of Spain, especially during the area of the dictator Francisco Franco, who wanted to see a more unified and traditional Spain. This heritage led to violent protests and a political atmosphere that we can see to this day in Catalonia. Therefore, such designation of regional rights allowing the use of a certain language more extensively does allow, as Cultural Policies and Trends outlines, public representation of the language, such as on the street and in the news and government, and has a key role in preserving the number of speakers of the language; however, it also threatens to lead to disunion and a lack of cohesiveness and inclusivity in the long term as intolerance blooms on all sides and common ground is lost.

Absence of an Official or National Language

The U.S. is an example of a state without an official or national language. In the U.S., the Constitution makes no mention of the official language and all languages are legally regarded as equal; a person born in the United States could theoretically live a normal life without ever learning the dominant, de facto English. Although the dominantly-spoken English may not be required on TV or in schools, such as the case in France with French, English is still spoken by the majority of the US population. Knowledge of English is also one of the requirements when taking the citizenship test, which is one of the ways someone is designated as an “American”, so it could be argued that it is the national language. English is also necessary to obtain many jobs or participate in higher education. However, the absence of an official requirement of English makes it easier to request translations of official documents, allows for the participation of a greater amount of people in the economy, and makes it possible for many non-English or bilingual schools to exist, which supports children trying to maintain fluency in different languages. Additionally, the complexity of the U.S. identity prevents English from defining the national identity of a U.S. citizen, so it is lacking some components of a national language, especially compared to the French language which is not only the most spoken language in France but also has a long tradition of bonding society. 

This does not guarantee that the society will remain cohesive, as not having a unifying language leads to, as CNN points out, a questioning of how the national identity is defined. It also contributes to the problem of segregation, as immigrants either assimilate into the dominant English over time or are perceived as the other when they choose to only live alongside speakers of the same language and are unable to easily communicate their thoughts to English speakers. While the potential for otherization and self-segregation coming from this lack of an official unifying language is a reason for concern, by not having a national or official language the U.S. has the privilege of not being forced to follow the tragedy for multilingualism that was the empire of Spain. The Spanish Empire aggressively imposed a monolingual society upon a multilingual nation, which to this day leaves many nations struggling to protect the rights of speakers of minority languages. Instead of centralizing English and tragically recreating the linguistic experience of the Spanish empire and early English colonization, America should rather focus on using the linguistic fluidity offered by the Constitution, which did not label a national language, in order to create a society that is inclusive towards speakers of all languages, and try to restore the lost and forgotten native languages of North America. 

Other nations, such as Mexico, do not cite an official language and actively protect the language rights of minorities, including the many indigenous languages that are largely under threat now, as Faingold explains. This arrangement comes from the fact that, unlike in France, there is no need to protect the language of the majority as Spanish is dominant and not threatened, and the problem is rather ensuring the rights of the indigenous people, which is a model that the US could follow. While English and Spanish are the dominant languages of the Americas, the nations of the Americas should focus on separating themselves from the politics of a language equating a nation, which is often predominant in Europe and the “Old World”, and focus on using their inherent diversity to create a national identity that incorporates fully speakers of all languages.

Official Language with Provisions for Minorities

India is famous for being multiethnic and multilingual, but it also claims constitutionally that Hindu is used officially to unify the diverse provinces and allow for the cohesion of the many ethnicities. Unlike France, it allows many provisions to the variety of minority groups, and unlike Spain, it does not necessarily restrict this to regions to prevent partitioning. In practice, this means that schools are able to instruct in many different languages and there is freedom on how things are commercialized. Publications on the national level could also be in different languages. On the other hand, the higher education and courts operate in Hindu or English, due to the colonial heritage. This means that speakers of languages other than Hindu or English are at a great disadvantage when it comes to acquiring higher education and succeeding in “higher” levels of society. As Sharma observes, this translated into a decrease in publications in languages other than Hindu and English and a decrease in speakers of the minority languages as Hindu and English are necessitated for success in the society. This reduction in multilingualism in India is concerning, as the country is supposed to be priding itself in its very multilingual nature. 

Multiple Official and National Languages

Switzerland is a country that relies on German, French, Italian, and Romansch, and all except for Romansch have equal status as the official and national language. This means that government documents and proceedings, schools, TVs, and daily life, in general, could happen in any of those languages, and the majority of people are at least bilingual, so the system works. However, this not only makes taking off with Swiss airplanes very long as the welcoming and instructions are said in all languages but also, for some countries such as India, can result in a confusing, impossibly time-consuming translations. While the Swiss model is something to consider (and something that is also followed in multinational organizations such as the EU), it has its drawbacks of requiring reforms in the education system and huge investments in translations in order to also ensure that the society remains cohesive. 

Conclusion

To conclude, in a situation where many languages are spoken in a small area, it appears the easiest and most realistic approach is to have one lingua franca in order to ensure cohesiveness. However, this should not mean that all public affairs should occur only in one language. It would be especially dangerous for maintaining the number of speakers of a minority language, and thus ensuring that the language survives, to take the language outside of schools, TVs, and stores, as this most often leads to alienation of young generations from their mother tongues and reaffirms the domination of colonial heritage. Perhaps the idea of having one official language (so that there are grounds for mutual understanding), no national language (so speakers of all languages are seen as constituents of that nation and an inclusive environment is maintained), and many provisions to minority languages, especially when it comes to educational opportunities, so that the number of speakers is maintained, proves to be the best track of thinking in order to achieve a more just, welcoming, united, and tolerant society in the future.

Shedding Light on the “Prison-to-Jihad” Pipeline: Islam, Radicalization, and Terrorism in French Prisons

Since the Islamic State’s creation in June 2014, France has witnessed the most terrorist related violence across all of Europe and the United States. Brookings’ scholars McCants and Meserole recently published a landmark study identifying Francophone status as the biggest determinant for whether European countries experience Sunni radicalization and violence. These two data points highlight the continued risks posed by violent extremist organizations (VEOs) to the government of France and its citizens. Terrorism in France is too often wrapped up in conflicting narratives of nationalism, Islam, and immigration. Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen frequently used the trope of Middle Eastern refugees seeking to unleash violence against France in the name of Islam, a narrative that secured her one-third of the national vote in the 2017 presidential elections. Yet the overwhelming majority of recent terrorist attacks haven’t been carried out by refugees, but by French citizens socialized in the country’s secular schools. Moreover, a wide variety of groups have engaged in terrorism across France since the 1800s, including Basque, Breton and Corsican separatists, pro- and anti-Algerian independence movements, the far-left Action Directe, the far-right Organisation Armée Secrète, neo-Nazis, and more recently, Islamic extremists. Islamic extremists, as defined by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), engage in the violence in the name of a faith-based ideology in order to impose strict regulations on social life, though they often lack even rudimentary religious education. In the case of Islamic extremism in France, this violence is particularly anti-state, as the French government’s strict interpretation of secularism, or laicite, results in heavy restrictions on Islam in public spaces. Yet the roots of radicalization lie in specific social processes which take place at the individual rather than community level. While Muslims in France, and overlapping African and Maghrebi immigrant populations, face state violence and widespread economic discrimination, the overwhelming majority continue to reject violence and extremist ideologies. Prisons offer a clearer view of this complex relationship between government policies, Islam, radicalization, and terrorism. If authorities are to effectively dismantle radicalization networks in prisons, they must create targeted rehabilitation programs, end isolation of suspected radicals, empower Imams as independent authorities, and avoid securitizing entire populations who face continued discrimination.

Race and identity in the French criminal justice system

French pundits consistently highlight prisons as “incubators” for radicalization. The government estimates that 1,400 radicalized inmates currently reside in prison, 300 of whom are serving sentences for terrorism charges. A major blind spot for security services comes not from convicted terrorists, but from petty criminals who are radicalized while serving their sentences and who carry out attacks upon leaving. Notable former inmates charged with crimes like petty theft, drug possession, and larceny include Mohammed Merah, perpetrator of the 2012 Toulouse attacks, Mehdi Nemmouche of the 2014 Brussels Jewish Museum attack, and the assailants from the January 2015 Paris attacks, Amedy Coulibaly and Cherif Kouachi. Countering violent extremism (CVE) policies must, therefore, highlight both convicted terrorists and inmates more broadly susceptible to radicalization, despite clear indicators.

Hardline ideologies in French prisons exist alongside more broadly followed religious practices, namely Islam, which plays a major role in inmates’ social networks. Islam spread rapidly across the prison population in the 1970s with the spread of Tablighi, a movement within Sunni Islam which emphasizes piety. At first, prison authorities welcomed this trend and its stabilizing effect on prisoners, as it weakened the influence of organized criminal groups. It was only in the 1990s, during the Algerian Civil War and the growth of Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) cells across France, that prison officials began securitizing Islam, resulting in greater surveillance and the use of isolation on Muslim inmates. Currently, more than 60 percent of inmates identify as Muslim (almost 40,000 inmates total), despite making up only 12% of the general population. One reason for this overrepresentation stems from the failure of integration on the part of the government, as explained by sociologist Moussa Khedimellah. Many Muslim inmates come from banlieues, segregated neighborhoods predominantly populated by immigrant communities, with few opportunities for higher education or employment. Arrest rates in these neighborhoods far surpass the national average. While the government is prohibited from collecting statistics on race or religion, French Muslims, mostly from Arab or African descent, are estimated to comprise the majority of those arrested on drug charges, especially for marijuana. Another potential reason for the skew is widespread institutional violence directed towards France’s Arab and African population. The state of emergency passed in the aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attacks saw wide-scale police repression targeting French Muslims, with tens of thousands targeted with random searches and online surveillance, and thousands more subjected to house raids. Economic and political discrimination create additional issues. French Muslims are reportedly 400% less likely to receive a job offer than their Catholic counterparts, even when controlling for education and skill level. Second and third generation citizens with Arab and African surnames are told to change their names when submitting job applications. As a result of this widespread discrimination, charismatic “influencers” in prisons have little difficulty persuading inmates about the perceived irreconcilability of French identity and Islam when they can easily draw on lived experiences of institutional Islamophobia and the openly racist and violent discourse of political groups like the French National Front.

While the linkages between impoverished banlieue and radicalization are appealing, a closer look at recent attacks shows a more nuanced picture. In fact, while some attackers like the Kouachi brothers fit an expected pattern of fragmented social networks, poverty, barriers to employment, and repeat criminality, other attackers emerged from middle-class, secular families with access to education, like Coulibaly. Moreover, the average French citizen traveling to Iraq or Syria to fight for the Islamic State is increasingly white, middle-class, and occasionally female. France must address the rampant economic and social exclusion facing Arab and African populations in banlieu neighborhoods but should do so without the pretense of addressing the root causes of radicalization, which are far more nuanced. While difficult conditions certainly shaped the path to radicalization for some notorious individuals, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of ‘banlieusards’ are not taking up arms against the French state. Therefore, while environmental factors can serve as stressors to sensitize an individual to radicalization, the unique social process that place in prisons requires a closer look.

The “Prison to Jihad Pipeline”

Most literature supports the idea that prisons, under certain conditions, can serve as potent incubators for radicalization. Across the Middle East, prisons hosted numerous jihadist figures, including Al Qaeda notables Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Spanish, British, Belgian, and French prisons have all produced terrorists socialized during their detention who went on to carry out major acts of terrorism. Given the varying quality of life and style of detention across these different countries, radicalization is likely an individual process of socialization exacerbated by broader environmental stressors. Prisons offer unique opportunities for ideological indoctrination. The combination of emotional shock, isolation, and the need for social belonging push many prisoners to turn to moral frameworks or spirituality during their incarceration. Sociologist Farhad Khosrokhavar explains prison radicalization as a multi-stage process. Often, vulnerable inmates enter prison on minor charges and have little to no religious education. Once in prison, highly charismatic individuals will approach them and offer them a sense of belonging, beginning a gradual socialization process. The ideology used is designed to push individuals out of existing social isolation by giving them a worldview that is both empowering and highly intolerant, one that is especially attractive to those who already hold anti-state views. Once the relationship is established, the influencer uses a combination of violence and social norms to create a social network. These groups can outlast prison sentences, and connect former inmates to other extremists across Europe, and even with VEOs around the world. This radicalization process is seen clearly in the cases of Merah and Coulibaly. Both grew up in mostly non-religious households, and as a result of repeated experiences with criminal networks and the French justice system, came into contact with charismatic convicts who socialized them to violent, anti-state ideologies. This process of socialization continues to produce terrorists within the criminal justice system, and requires a strong policy response.

The general French state’s response to terrorism, informed by waves of domestic terrorism in the late 20th century, established a system that easily arrests and convicts suspects by casting a broad net over any individuals remotely linked to terrorist networks. While this allows a whole-of-network approach and can theoretically preempt terrorist attacks, it also solidifies otherwise weak links between terrorist networks and larger illicit economies present in banlieues. For example, the trabendo criminal networks present among first and second generation Maghrebi communities are mostly unconnected to terrorism, yet are frequent targets during mass arrests targeting potential terrorists, creating new linkages. Salah Abdeslam, the only surviving perpetrator of the November 2015 Paris attacks, managed to evade capture for over 150 days using social and family networks tied to the drug trade in the suburbs of Brussels. The very same ISIS cell involved in the attacks previously worked with petty criminals and drug dealers to recruit fighters for ISIS. While terrorism ought to be treated as a law enforcement issue, the government’s current approach is to broad and risks strengthening ties between otherwise unaffiliated criminals and terrorist cells. Moving beyond this approach would require greater intelligence gathering to target individual suspects, as well as broader policy shifts in urban development and limited drug legalization to weaken existing illicit economies.

Beyond arrests, the French approach towards deradicalization within prison focuses on more on sentencing than rehabilitation, an approach which undermines the potential for effective deradicalization programs. Over the last decade, in light of high profile attacks committed by former inmates, the government adopted several new approaches. First, prison officials gained an increasing power to overrule prisoner rights, notably the right to privacy, in the name of security. With the creation of a new Bureau of Prison Intelligence, prison officials can now wiretap phones, place hidden cameras, and examine electronic communications, using tools previously only available to intelligence services. Second, the government launched a new program designed to separately target “influencers” and inmates in the process of being radicalized. The program involves a higher ratio of wardens to prisoners, with staff trained in psychology, sociology, Islam, and history. Inmates are offered theatre workshops, debate seminars, and courses covering subjects ranging from legal studies to Japanese literature. These programs are intended to last six months, after which the inmate is released into the general population under close supervision by prison staff. Beyond prisons, the government has attempted to passed new laws to counter radicalization within schools, by better communicating the reasons for laicites to faith communities, teaching more colonial history in classrooms, and encouraging Arabic language courses within public spaces, although these have proven politically unattractive with conservative voters. This combination of policies seeks to deradicalize individuals through a variety of tools, which combat root factors in marginalized populations, engage with individuals along the path of radicalization, and isolate individuals deemed “too far gone.”

Results so far have been mixed. While the combination of isolation targeting influencers and robust CVE engagement with those at risk of radicalization has reduced the number of reported incidents of radicalization in prisons, analysts warn against premature declarations of success. In fact, many argue that influencers are now more hidden than they were in the past, as the policies have not stopped radicalization but rather pushed it further underground. This mirrors the government’s crackdown on hardline Imams in the early 2000s. One unintended consequence of this policy was that radicalization moved underground into social spaces where it couldn't be monitored or challenged by the government or community members. Another policy, the construction of dedicated isolation facilities for radicalized inmates, poses numerous problems. First, radicalization is difficult to measure and this sort of segregation results in pious inmates being lumped in with hardened extremists. Second, isolating radical prisoners from the general population risks pushing them furthers their radicalization, as they lose exposure to information beyond their personal beliefs and that of prison officials. Finally, this move risks empowering more radical cells amongst convicted terrorists. When the UK established such a special segregated unit in 2005, it put members of Al Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and smaller Algerian outfits in the same unit. The result was a book, Limatha Intasarna (Why We Were Victorious), written by one of the inmates, collecting lessons from different inmates on military and organizational tactics, which was then smuggled out of prison for distribution to VEOs worldwide. Isolating radicals in special units may give the appearance of greater security, but simply enforces existing hardline ideologies and reduces the chance for radicalization to be challenged through a marketplace of ideas with other prisoners. However, the higher staff-to-inmate ratios and opportunities for education are promising, and show strong results in other countries where they are already deployed.

Beyond the potential backlash produced by isolating high-level influencers and radicalized inmates from the general population, these programs fail to fully interact with the environmental stressors that make inmates vulnerable to radicalization. One major issue in French prisons is the lack of faith services available to Muslim inmates. Research points to the crucial role that Imams can play in counter-radicalization efforts, as they can use theological arguments to dispel extremist ideologies. Yet as of 2008, only 100 Imams serviced France’s 200 prisons, compared with 480 Catholic, 250 Protestant, and 50 Jewish chaplains. More broadly, general debates about religion are heavily stifled by France’s strict interpretation of secularism, or laicite. In stark contrast to the United States, which bans government interference in religion, French laicite places strict restrictions on religious displays in public, notably in schools. Yet the country’s strong Catholic roots ensure that, to some degree, these restrictions target French Muslims to a greater degree than any other group. What debates do occur within prisons, are often undertaken by underpaid Imams and Islamic scholars who are vetted by authorities.  The strict regulations placed on their sermons by officials limit their ability to engage with radicalized inmates and result in their image as a tool of the state. As a result, radicalized inmates avoid contact with them, out of suspicion or fears of being punished for interacting with them. The government ought to empower Imams with more resources and independence, in order to create strong voices in prisons which can mediate between prisoners and officials, and counteract the power of influencers.

In addition to empowering religious figures, French prisons must better support the freedom of Muslim inmates to express their faith while serving their sentences, as current restrictions on gives additional ammunition to influencers. While Muslim prisoners can forego pork products, true halal meals are not an option in most prisons. Christian inmates receive special gifts from family members for Christmas, but Muslim inmates don’t receive the same on Ramadan. French authorities can significantly weaken “influencers” by enforcing religious requirements in line with standards established by the European Court of Justice and the United Nations. These include, among other things; defined halal menu options, alarm clocks to indicate prayer times, access to Korans, flexible dinner schedules to accommodate for fasting during Ramadan, the provision of soap and water at prayer spaces, and the right to meet with spouses in a private room. Religious accommodations in line with international standards can only serve to weaken influencers, and is crucial to promoting human rights in prisons.

If France seeks to break the prison to jihad pipeline, it ought to move beyond discourses which securitize broad segments of the population and empower moderate voices in prison indirectly, by giving Imams more support and autonomy, while ensuring that prisoners can freely practice their faith. While targeted support for prisoners at risk of radicalization can provide positive outcomes, it should be done in a manner that doesn’t fully isolate them, at risk of cementing hardline views. Finally, the prison debate should force a broader discussion in French society about the treatment of Muslims in general, with an emphasis on economic inclusion and genuine police reform.

NATO À La Carte, And Other Ways France Tried to Resist American Hegemony

In his most recent book The World America Made, Robert Kagan offers an account of the peculiarities that characterize the world order led by the United States. Among the most outstanding of them is the unprecedented acceptance of American leadership. The United States never goes to wars without a handful of allies on its side: even the unpopular invasion in Afghanistan was eventually joined by more than forty nations. Moreover, states with no geopolitical stakes in the initiatives the U.S. takes support them out of mere belief in American commitment to human rights and democracy. Even the security dilemma was effectively defied by the U.S., claims Kagan, since America’s arms buildup in the 1980s and 1990s was accompanied by significant reduction in military capabilities in many world regions. The world portrayed by Kagan’s work depicts the U.S.’ having decisively won the “hearts and minds” of so many wealthy and powerful countries that the American order is nearly impossible to undermine. In the reality, however, there are many doubts about the necessity and legitimacy of American leadership. Apart from Washington’s long-standing rivals, such as China, Iran, and Russia, one of the closest and most powerful allies of the U.S., France, is accustomed to renouncing the American order, and has been doing so for decades. France’s uneasiness with U.S. preeminence was never pronounced enough to shatter the world order, let alone give a reason to coin France as a revisionist state. However, this persisting suspicion of American power coming from one of its most trusted partners has shaped France’s foreign policy, as well as French-American relations, in a few profound ways. Beginning with Charles de Gaulle’s call for a “Europe of Europeans,” Paris was oftentimes a reluctant and confrontational ally. This hesitancy to stand by U.S.’ side dispels any illusion about the cohesion of American order, which, at some point or another, has failed the test of legitimacy in the eyes of not only its rivals but its closest friends.

When the French-American alliance was born in 1778, it was born out of parallel self-interest, not shared ideals. More than two centuries later, the two countries’ self-interests remain similar, and their cooperation in military, political, and intelligence areas are strong. Yet, it was not always consistent. U.S.-French relations went through several major crises that unsettled the Western alliance and showcased France’s persistent frustration with being subordinate to America. During the Cold War days, President Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a Europe led by Europeans instead of Americans created an additional divide, and this time within the Western block. An unparalleled initiative undertaken by de Gaulle to withdraw French troops from NATO and expel NATO forces from France shattered confidence in the Alliance’s ability to counter the Soviet military. De Gaulle, however, saw NATO primarily not as a defense mechanism against the USSR but as a “hated symbol of U.S. hegemony.” Distancing from it was a way to emancipate France from American influence and pursue an independent foreign policy. The General’s decision to demand the removal of NATO headquarters from Paris forced the relocation of 100,000 U.S. and NATO personnel and over one million ton of supplies and equipment – perhaps the least of the problems America was facing in dealing with France at the time. The four immediate successors of de Gaulle did not deviate from his foreign policy, and Paris remained partially withdrawn from the Alliance for forty-three years. When Nicolas Sarkozy, one of France’s most pro-American leaders, did choose to reverse the de Gaulle’s decision and return to NATO in 2009, the elite and media opposition to the alignment with the United States and rapprochement with NATO was still strong.

But before France returned to NATO as a full-fledged member, it made several attempts to undermine the organization’s influence on the continent, which ultimately undermined American power. After the disappearance of the U.S.’ main geo-political rival with the collapse of the USSR, France revived its calls for a European security system built free of American influence. As hesitant as the French were to endorse NATO’s expansion that was initiated by the U.S., they had little ability to counter it. What the could do is endorse proposals that countered NATO’s enlargement. France waged what Marie-Claude Plantin of the University of Lyon calls a kind of “guerrilla warfare” against any changes to strengthen American influence in the region. Plantin, in her book The Future of Nato, describes how the French government initially voiced opposition to initiatives as moderate as the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, due to a belief that it to be a political tool for Americans to exercise control over Europe. During his term, French President Mitterrand chose the Western European Union as the organization to counter U.S. military monopoly in the region. Eventually, Franco-German units, later joined by Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain, were supposed to form the nucleuses for an independent European military force, but it later became evident that the U.S. military predominance and, consequently, NATO, could not easily be uprooted. After failing to shift focus from NATO to the EU/WEU tandem, Mitterrand attempted to Europeanize the North Atlantic Alliance. This undertaking, too, had little success, and the French leadership was compelled to accept NATO’s primacy in the matters of European security. 

Today, the United States and France are undoubtedly long-standing allies with many interests and values. Nevertheless, what created major divides between the two countries in the past were principal disagreements over important international issues.. These divides not only disrupted the bilateral relationship between the two nations but also shattered confidence in one of the U.S.’ most important military alliances. While clashes of interest between rival powers are natural, such turbulences in a relationship with what many see as a traditional American ally are more alarming. Even though President Macron and President Trump now appear to be on the same wavelength about French-American relations, it was American unilateralism and arrogance that have always ignited French dissent of U.S. foreign policy – and the current administration appears to be susceptible to both. Macron’s pragmatism, for now, outweighs traditional geopolitical uneasiness with which France treats its relationship with the U.S., but as Kagan remarks, the wide acceptance America enjoys should never be confused with “helpless tolerance of U.S. predominance.” French historical resistance of American hegemony was ever hardly an attempt to drastically rewrite the rules of the game, yet it is not to be discounted as mere whims of French nationalism, or ego clashes of presidential regimes. If the U.S. is interested in preserving its primacy, it should keep an eye on its friends as much as on its enemies. Ultimately, the world America made might not have rivals powerful enough to undermine it, but does it have admirers enthusiastic enough to sustain it?

Re-contextualizing “The White Man’s Burden” to Understand France’s Recent Xenophobic Policies

On August 23, 2016, police forced a woman relaxing on the beach in France with her family clad in a blue long-sleeved tunic with black pants and a blue headscarf to either leave the beach or take off her headscarf and tunic; meanwhile, onlookers yelled “go home” and applauded the police while her daughter cried. This incident is just one exampleof the backlash on burkinis that began when a water park closed to only allow women covered from chest to knees. The opposition to burkinis further spread when many towns banned burkinis from their beaches, resulting in women being fined or asked to leave for wearing burkinis. The burkini waterpark day would provide an opportunity for women to observe their beliefs while enjoying typical summer activities such as going to a waterpark, which was the motive for the Lebanese-born Australian woman who created the burkini in 2004: to accommodate conservative values while still allowing observant women to swim. A local Member of Parliament (MP) voiced his concern that veils represent fundamentalists who want to control women, while the mayor of Les Pennes-Mirabeau opposed the Burkini Day because he thought it was threatening to public order. Even the French Prime Minister supported cities and resorts banning burkinis, stating that burkinis affirm “political Islam” in a public space. France has 5 million Muslims, about 2000 of which wear full veils. The burkini reveals an ideological battle in France over French identity and the influx of Muslim immigrants from France’s former colonies.

France has a unique identity, which, like all other national identities, was established in a mainly homogenous society through a perceived difference from other identities and nationalities. The origins of French identity mean that fully-assimilated French citizens possess a high propensity for xenophobia, which causes citizens to view different identities as intrinsically opposite to their own identity. “The White Man’s Burden,” a poem written during the Scramble for Africa in 1899 expressing the sentiment of the colonial time-period, stated that colonies are a burden that empires should acquire in order to “civilize” inferior, or non-European, populations. While “The White Man’s Burden” originally influenced Europe’s colonial agendas, contemporary French policies toward immigrants, particularly Muslims, demonstrate that the poem’s ideological core continues to reproduce itself in French policies, including bans on burkinis, niqabs, and headscarves, surveillance of immigrants, and assimilation efforts.

Europe began colonizing Africa in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in a race to secure profits in the slave, sugar, gold, and spice trades. France’s colonies were mainly in North and West Africa. France continued to consolidate their colonies in the late nineteenth century in order to secure their colonial economic system. In order to do so, the French government harshly implemented their hegemony in order to maintain their oppressive system. “The White Man’s Burden” expressed the rationalization for these oppressive policies, but by 1960, French-controlled West African states had gained independence, which spurred an increase of migrants in France.

Since 1960, there have been two streams of immigration: return, consisting of those of mostly European descent, and labor migration, resulting mainly from those indigenous to former colonies. After the independence of French West Africa, most labor migrants native to the former colonies were male workers looking for employment, whose settlement in French cities began postcolonial migration to France. However, these indigenous immigrants were not well-received, in part because of their history of exploitation which helps produce current prejudices and, in some cases, the fights for independence. Thus, colonization still impacts immigrants’ lives today: indigenous immigrants from former colonies face racial or ethnic discrimination and stereotypes as a result of colonization and might view the host country with suspicion because of their history of colonization. Many immigrants therefore find it difficult to assimilate into French society, and the history of exploitation during colonization becomes a present reality in employment discrimination. Oppression of indigenous labor migrants in France has occurred since the colonial era and continues today.

Much of the present discrimination stems from xenophobic, racist, or islamophobic sentiments dating back to French colonization. One of the events highlighting this discrimination in recent French history was an investigation in 1943 based solely on immigrants’ ethnicity. The 1943 investigation surrounded a rumor in French bureaucracy that Arab cafés in Paris were playing Arabic radio broadcasts that criticized French immigration policies. This rumor incitedinvestigations into civil status, political affiliation, nationality, and other qualities of the immigrants going to these cafés, marking the start of surveillance of immigrants in France that continues today. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, French surveillance became subtly and symbolically violent because authorities were alarmed at the perceived radicalization in the African immigrant community because of the potential to destabilize French society and politics. French surveillance emphasized control and undesirability of immigrants from former colonies in addition to understanding the immigrants and how to best assimilate them into French society. Since the 1980’s, radical right-wing parties campaigning on xenophobic platforms have grown in popularity in Europe, and these parties take advantage of citizens’ fears of threats from immigration in order to gain power and enact discriminatory legislation.

Presently, France’s population is comprised of 6% immigrants, 61% of which are from outside the EU; however, most immigrants of non-European descent remain poor due to segregated institution, failing school, low upward mobility, and racism and discrimination in employment, which are all remnants of the colonial era. France has limited immigration data since the French census or other data sources pose no questions of ethnic origin in order to adhere to France’s efforts to promote social cohesion. French citizens are generally more tolerant towards immigrants, but they demand more public order, which leads to intolerance, as they consider immigrants producing social disorder.

French colonial history has shaped the French government’s attitude toward this wave of immigration, viewing immigrants as unlikely to fit into France’s rigid society. France surveils its immigrants, as it surveilled indigenous peoples during colonial times. North African groups seek to be recognized as equal citizens instead of being viewed as natives because of their colonial history. Gaining citizenship as an immigrant from the Maghreb is difficult because of colonial history, and the colonial past is downplayed by justifying delays of granting citizenship as practical considerations. In order to obtain citizenship in France, candidates must prove they support the Republic’s values and cultural standards in public and private life. The French government uses surveillance techniques not only to understand the immigrant populations, but also to determine how to develop or alter policies regarding their presence in France and to shape immigrant communities in France. Thus, surveillance contributesto conformist policies. Xenophobic Frenchman view cultural difference as an obstacle to integrating immigrants into French culture and society.

French authorities have low regard for African immigrants because they believe African migration poses problems for a cohesive French society, illustrating the need to assimilate immigrants into French society. Authorities also viewedimmigrants as apolitical and grew concerned when immigrants became more politicized, thinking that African workers were radicalizing and thus threatening French society. This thought process justified the increase in efforts to detect radical or dangerous African immigrants. Recently, the populist extreme right has taken advantage of less social cohesion and status uncertainty by creating exclusionary policies, including the recent burkini bans, the 2004 headscarf ban in schools, the 2011 “burka ban” which banned face coverings from public spaces, and the May 2016 law passed in the National Assembly, giving police and prosecutors extensive power.

The 2004 headscarf ban protected the French Constitution’s interpretation of “libérté de la réligion,” which literally translates to two possibilities: freedom from religion or freedom of religion. The French government is organized around the interpretation, freedom from religion, which is the basis for their secular policies, or laïcité. According to the French government, the headscarf banprotects France’s policy of laïcité. The 2004 law that bans headscarves also bans other conspicuous, religious symbols including wearing a turban or a cross in school. Supporters of the ban argue that France must start the notion of secularity in schools. This law was made in reaction to tensions between ethnic or religious groups in France and in order to cement ideas of laïcité. Despite the controversy of the headscarf ban, it remains in place.

Additionally, in 2011, former President Sarkozy banned the niqab in all public spaces, meaning full face coverings are not allowed in public. Some women who wear niqabs or burqas are essentially under house arrest because they are not allowed to go outside wearing niqab or burka but value it such that they will not appear outside without it. Exemptions from the face-covering ban includemotorcycle helmets, face masks for medicinal reasons, and traditional face coverings such as for carnivals or religious processions. One woman filed a claim that the ban violates her rights and freedoms, but the European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban in 2014. With the face-covering ban in place, Sarkozy hinted at banning all headscarves in public places if he wins the French presidential election in 2017.

Other French politicians have reiterated Sarkozy’s suggestion to ban any headscarves from public places. French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, has suggested a ban on headscarves for universities, asserting that the majority of the French people think that headscarves contradict French values. However, the education minister opposes this suggestion, asserting that banning headscarves would unjustly deny access to foreigners attending French universities and that university students, as adults, can independently decide to wear a headscarf. In defense of the headscarf ban at universities, Valls told a French publication, Libération, that banning headscarves would prove that Islam is compatible with the French Republic’s values and that he thinks it is possible for Islam to be compatible with the values of the Republic. Valls’ statements imply that he currently thinks that Islam is not compatible with the French Republic and its values. These statements showcase the growing xenophobic and islamophobic sentiments among government officials, which both reflect and are reflected in the public opinion towards similar policies. Islamophobic sentiments trigger oppressive policies such as headscarf and niqab bans, which reflect sentiments of “civilizing an inferior population” in “The White Man’s Burden.” This poem continues to portray public and government opinions on immigration, and in this case, particularly immigration to France from former colonies in North Africa.

Triggered by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, another law, passed in May 2016, now gives police and prosecutors extensive new powers. Police can now detain a person for up to four hours without a lawyer to check his or her identity and can place someone returning from a terrorist hotbed on house arrest for up to a month, promoting racial or religious profiling and targeting those with immigrant backgrounds. Additionally, police have access toelectronic eavesdropping technology that was previously only used by intelligence agencies, and prosecutors can approve phone tapping, communication surveillance, and hidden cameras to observe suspects. Police can detain a suspect for 144 hours without a charge. Opponents of the law argue that it would allow exceptional measures used for states of emergency to become commonplace and that France is trying to institutionalize extended powers for when the state of emergency ends. This law further institutionalizes the already systemic issue of xenophobia, racism, and islamophobia that are all reflections of France’s colonial past.

The large influx of immigrants to France has created a feeling of uncertainty in French society, so right-wing parties are campaigning on xenophobic platforms are gaining support. For example, the Front National makes immigrants from North Africa scapegoats, and under Sarkozy, France tightened criteria for immigration, including good language skills, minimum base of knowledge of French history, and accepting major norms and values. The idea that immigrants, particularly those with Muslim backgrounds, must be monitored and controlled as much as possible for France’s safety stems directly from the ideas put forth during the colonial era. “The White Man’s Burden” portrays opinion during colonization, and, as many immigrants in France originate from former French colonies, these sentiments still resonate today. Although much concern was placed over the burkini ban, the motivation for bans takes precedence. These bans and regulations are rooted in the dangerous and uninformed idea that immigrants, particularly those of another race or religion, are inferior populations and must be controlled and monitored.

France reproduces ideology from “The White Man’s Burden” today through new laws extending police and prosecutorial powers over targeted immigrant groups, bans on headwear, and other discriminatory and exclusionary laws. French politicians are capitalizing on the public’s fear of the “other,” or the unfamiliar, by designing xenophobic, islamophobic, and racist platforms. However, this phenomenon is not only specific to France. The United Kingdom has announced plans following its referendum to leave the EU to make immigration from India, a former colony, more difficult in order to protect business. Germany has been accused of offering money to asylum seekers to return to their countries of origin, including former colonies such as Ghana. Other European countries are experiencing similar results in terms of both elections of xenophobic parties and implementation of xenophobic policies. Recent terrorist attacks fuel these kinds of policies and xenophobic and islamophobic sentiment; however, the majority of these recent policies targeting immigrants stem from “The White Man’s Burden” ideology, portraying the need to control and civilize “inferior” populations.

France’s State of Emergency

After threats, or attacks upon a country’s security such as the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, a state will most likely strive to undertake measures to reestablish security and prevent future attacks from occurring. However, the steps a state undertake to do this must be in line with the rights and freedoms their citizens are entitled to under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which every UN member is expected to promote and protect. After 9/11 the United States attempted to prevent future terrorist attacks by a number of measures. However, not all of them, such as the CIA torture program and NSA mass surveillance program, respected human rights. Fortunately, due to a collected public outcry, the CIA’s use of torture is no more, and many aspects of NSA’s mass surveillance that infringe on a person’s right to privacy are currently under heavy scrutiny. However, the same environment of fear that lead to those programs still lives today.

Following the recent Paris attacks in November by a group of individuals linked to ISIL, France’s President Hollande enacted a state of emergency. This state of emergency gives regional authorities a number of powers such as setting curfews, forbidding public gatherings, etc. However, what makes this state of emergency significant is that it gives authorities the ability to conduct raids and enforce house arrests without a warrant. Without judicial oversight, French authorities have been allowed to conduct anti-terrorism operations with no consequence. This has led to an extensive police presence, overuse of raids, and abuse of house arrests by the French government. However, rather than actually being effective against terrorism, France’s state of emergency has only created an environment in which its Muslim citizens experience trampled civil liberties and are targeted as potential terrorists with little to no evidence. As a member of the UN, France is expected to uphold the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and extend the rights defined within it to all of its citizens. However, France’s extensive use of raids and detention under grounds of state of emergency violates the declaration.

Grey Anderson writes an extensive background of the state of emergency law within the Jacobin magazine, which is best summarized to explain the important role its history plays in the violations of civil liberties in France today. The state of emergency law was first composed in 1955 during the Algerian war of independence. France had a peculiar relationship with Algeria in that rather than viewing Algeria simply as a foreign colony, many French citizens regarded Algeria as part of France. France’s identity became entwined with Algeria’s. In 1955, when Algerian nationalists took up arms against the French government in a bid for independence, France sought to put down the nationalist movement in a way that didn’t recognize the conflict as a foreign war. Doing so would legitimize the Algerian nationalists and go against the French discourse of France and Algeria as one and the same. Instead of using military action, France thus crafted a law that imposed a state of emergency in which emergency powers were given to French authorities within Algeria as a tool of repression during a time of war. These roots give France’s state of emergency today its repressive nature. Rather than effective anti-terrorism measures that respect civil liberties, the French government has recalled this 1955 piece of legislation that was intended to prevent a free Algeria.

While the law that defines France’s state of emergency is over 60 years old, it was recently updated and enhanced in November when the French parliament extended it for three months. A recent LawFare article written by Daniel Severson, a graduate student at Harvard University, explains the recent updates to France’s state of emergency legislation. The new, 2015 law has significantly broader language than the previous, which has played a significant part in France’s civil rights abuses. The old 1955 law stated that a person could be placed under house arrest if they were involved in activities that “prove to be dangerous to security and the public order.” However, the updated law now states anyone may be subjected to house arrest if there is “serious reason to think that the person’s conduct threatens security or the public order.” The new 2015 law also allows for raids without a warrant upon a place a person frequents if there are “serious reasons to think the place is frequented by a person whose conduct threatens security or the public order.” This broad language makes it far easier for the French government to define terrorist threats and react, but it also makes it far easier for the French government to abuse the civil rights of those who are not affiliated with terrorist groups.

According to the Guardian, there have been 3,099 house raids with more than 260 people detained for questioning, and more than 380 people have been placed under house arrest, including 24 climate activists preceding the November Paris climate summit since the establishment of France’s state of emergency. However, the majority of those who have been affected are French Muslims. In addition, The Guardian also claims that of the 3,099 raids, only 4 have resulted in “judicial proceedings linked to terrorism.” It is obvious that most of the raids and detentions are conducted on little to no evidentiary grounds if out of more than 3,000 raids only 4 have resulted in actual court cases. Lack of judicial oversight has led to the French government acting in a dangerous and lawless manner with many innocent citizens being put in harm’s way. For example, in a video a Muslim man describes and shows the results of a French police raid upon his home. His daughter was hit in the neck by shotgun pellets when they shot the door open and his home was upturned. In an interview with Democracy Now, Yasser Louati, a spokesperson for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, elaborates on this video and states that the French police had the wrong house, apologized, and then left. Louati goes on to say that carelessness and targeting such as that seen in the described video has created a sense of “outrage and deep humiliation and complete abandonment by the government” within the French Muslim community. With little to no accountability for their actions, the French government is alienating the Muslim community within France.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights establishes a groundwork of civil liberties for every human being regardless of race, religious affiliation, etc. When a state becomes a UN member they must pledge to uphold this declaration and apply it to each of its own citizens. France, however, has violated Article 3, Article 7, Article 9, as well as Article 13 which deal with security of person, representation before the law, arbitrary detention, and freedom of movement, respectively, with its current state of emergency. If France’s raids and detentions actually resulted in prosecutions after extensive evidence of terrorist connection was found before a raid, then yes, the raids would be warranted. However, when 3,000 raids are conducted and only 4 result in prosecutions on grounds of terrorist connections, something is horribly wrong with the anti-terrorism process. Substantial evidence to justify a raid should be found before one occurs, not sought for during. Lack of judicial oversight has allowed for raids to be ordered with little to no justification, which explains the large disparity in France’s number of raids and number of prosecutions. However, this disparity illuminates the heavy handedness of the French government on the Muslim French community as French police detain people and raid home with no terrorist connections.

Currently, the French government is seeking to extend the state of emergency another three months. The Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, recently stated that emergency powers may have to be kept until ISIL is defeated. Frankly, an indefinite extension of these laws is frightening and signal that civil liberties have lost out to supposed security in France. If the French government truly values liberté, égalité, fraternité and its role as a UN Security Council member, it should immediately revise its state of emergency law and add judicial oversight while specifying the law’s language to prevent civil rights abuses. It is well within the French government’s right to do what it feels is best for the safety of its people, however as a member of the United Nations and the Security Council, France’s current actions are unacceptable.