Katya Lopatko: A Win for Centrists

“On Sunday, the people of France annoyingly retained their traditional right to claim intellectual superiority over Americans.” The New Yorker’s celebrated political satirist Andy Borowitz summed up the dramatic and drawn-out French election with this quip, but French seeking to maintain cultural superiority are not the only ones breathing sighs of relief this morning. Moderates and centrists all around the world are cheering; neoliberalism lives on in an age of right-wing populism hysteria dominating political discourse.

Macron is untraditional in all ways but policy–the banker turned politician has championed policies that would not be out of place on any American Democratic platform. Though he represents a rupture for French politics, clearly breaking from the Socialists, the traditional Left, Macron’s outsider credentials come from his youth, his scandalous relationship, and his new En Marche! party. Appearances aside, he is not a populist candidate–but in an age when populism has such an ugly, xenophobic face, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Miles Malley: Macron’s Foreign Policy Inexperience 

When it comes to domestic economic issues, there is little doubt that Emmanuel Macron knows what he is talking about, whether you agree with him or not. He comes in with more knowledge of the financial sector than maybe any other French President has had at the time of their election. Unfortunately, this knowledge does not seem to translate to foreign-policy expertise. According to sources, Macron had to cancel two different major foreign-policy interviews with French newspapers out of fear that he wasn’t prepared enough.

In this vein, Macron comes into office with an essentially blank-slate foreign policy doctrine. As the US is witnessing with Trump (who, by comparison, makes Macron look like a foreign policy guru) this means that first impressions with other countries can potentially shape entire policies and politics. This makes for a fascinating, if not dangerous, relationship between Macron and Putin’s Russia, who Macron and his team have publicly blamed for the President-elect’s hacked emails, rumors of homosexuality, and a barrage of other tactics intended to swing the election. Whether this all has turned Macron into a reactionary Russian-hawk is now one of the biggest foreign policy questions in all of Europe.

Aziza Kasumov: Not as Popular as you Think

France, on Sunday, seemed peacefully unified after centrist and liberal candidate Emmanuel Macron won the presidential election with a two-third majority of the vote over Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the extreme right. As Macron vowed to respect his political opponents, protesters, for the most part, stayed off the streets, sending an image into the world of a country that seemed, at least for the moment, at ease with itself, pressing “pause” on its internal divisions.

But let’s take a closer look at the numbers: Yes, Macron won with 66 percent of the vote, leaving Le Pen with only 34 percent. Yet more than one out of three French eligible voters either abstained (25.4 percent) or cast a spoilt ballot paper (12 percent). This shrinks Macron’s votes to less than 50 percent (41.4 percent, to be precise) of the total number of in theory available ballots — a record low. Only in 1969, when two center-right candidates made it to the run-off in the second round, the rate of abstention was higher than last Sunday. This election’s number of spoilt ballot papers, on the other hand, proved to be at an all-time record for the French Republic. Macron’s win wasn’t one of true conviction — and that will be a fragile fundament for a presidency that builds on its popular-vote legitimacy unlike any other in the Western world.

Will Macron be able to increase his margin of popular support? It depends on the success of his proposed policies and whether he’ll be able to implement them through legislative and European support. One thing, however, is for sure: The protesters who spared him on Sunday instead marched the streets on Monday. And they surely won’t cease to criticize him throughout the next five years.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

“Their world is crumbling. Ours is being built.”  The vice-president of France’s far-right, populist Front National (FN) party tweeted this message on November 9, as Donald Trump’s victory became evident. The FN’s prominence in the upcoming French presidential election poses yet another threat to the globalized, liberal world order which has recently endured two successive blows: Brexit and the election of President Trump. If the FN’s candidate, Marine Le Pen, becomes the next French president, that will be a third strike with immediate consequences for the European Union, and far-reaching effects for the world.

The French presidential race is heating up; all major political parties have selected their final candidates. Les Républicains (the conservative, center-right party) have chosen François Fillon. The FN’s unopposed candidate is Marine Le Pen. Current President Hollande’s ailing Socialistes swung left in primaries with the victory of candidate Benoît Hamon. Emmanuel Macron, former economy minister in President Hollande’s government, has launched an independent campaign promoting center-left principles. Finally, Jean-Luc Mélenchon will run as the candidate for the Communist party.

Similarities have emerged between the U.S. election cycle and the French campaigns. Marine Le Pen is the clear analogue to Donald Trump. Le Pen’s FN is a party of “France-first” isolationists and populists who feed on fears about immigration and the “islamization” of France. Though the Républicain François Fillon has many important differences from Hillary Clinton, both can be portrayed as the politically experienced “insider” candidate as well as reasonably centrist picks. Rather like Clinton, Fillon may be brought down by a scandal his campaign cannot shake – an allegation that Fillon’s wife Penelope did no real work while drawing an official salary as Fillon’s parliamentary assistant. The “Penelopegate” scandal threatens to ruin Fillon’s chances, damaging his anti-corruption reputation and challenging his small-government platform.

If Fillon’s scandal brings down his campaign, it will be up to either a candidate from the left or the independent Macron to counter Le Pen. Le Pen is widely expected to make it through the first round of elections in April, so the real challenge will occur during the runoff. The French presidential election occurs in two rounds, with the second round functioning as a runoff between the two candidates with the highest percentages of the vote from the first round.

The run-off mechanism is a useful structure. It allows voters to make their voice heard in the first round, but then cast a vote “against” one candidate rather than “for” the other in the second round to block a candidate viewed as unsuitable. The time between the two elections allows political leaders to rally their electorates to do just that. For example in 2002, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father and former head of the FN, captured enough votes to make it to the second round of voting against conservative Jacques Chirac. Massive popular protests followed, and socialists and conservatives rallied together to defeat Le Pen in a historic landslide. Chirac was elected with over 82% of the vote.

The best initial hope was that something similar would occur this year; that whether Fillon, Macron, Hamon, or Mélenchon was left standing to counter Le Pen, all the candidates’ former supporters would rally together to elect anyone but Le Pen. However, Emmanuel Macron’s unprecedented success as an independent candidate has redefined the story of this election cycle. Macron has combined economic reformism, social liberalism, and–perhaps most importantly–personal dynamism while on the campaign trail.

In an election cycle where electing someone, anyone other than Le Pen was thought to be the best case scenario, Macron has introduced an “outsider” political movement that is not based on fear and exclusion. Practically, Macron as President could invigorate the French economy, promote tolerance for immigrants in France, and strengthen the European Union. Symbolically, Macron suggests something even more important: that a centrist political movement might inspire the public and win. If Macron succeeds, he will have proven that the popular movement is not only a tool of the far right.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

Policy Pear President Lina Abisoghomyan and Glimpse From the Globe Senior Correspondent Luke Phillips sit down to discuss how Brexit affects the UK’s position in NATO, UK-US relations, and NATO cohesion. How does a post-Britain EU conceive of itself, and what does it mean for European security; for dealing with Russia, for the Middle East?

The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

As an employee of the United States Federal Government, the views presented by Ms. Lina Abisoghomyan are hers and hers alone. They are not stated on behalf of the Federal Government, nor are they representative of the official position of the United States on these issues.

Libya is running out of time.

The country’s economic situation is dire—it is estimated that Libya’s foreign reserves are around $50 to $60 billion, less than half of what they were just two years ago. Low oil prices have forced the country to run a deficit of up to $2 to $3 billion a month, and its internal chaos has led to a dearth of foreign investment and obstruction of traditional forms of government revenue. Libya’s main financial institutions, such as the Central Bank, National Oil Corporation and sovereign wealth fund also remain institutionally divided. Since the fall of longtime dictator Muammar Gadhafi in 2011, a political and security vacuum has emerged, with different militant and civilian interest groups battling for control in a rapidly deteriorating security landscape. The humanitarian crisis is deteriorating as food shortages mount. The Islamic State has taken advantage of the country’s weakness by expanding its presence; the group is thought to maintain 6,500 fighters and control over 150 miles of coastline. It has established a stronghold in the central coastal city of Sirte, as well as parts of Benghazi in the east and near Sabratha in the west. For ISIS, a country on the brink of economic collapse is a prime opportunity for expansion.

Back in December of 2015, the international community thought Libya had turned a page in its bloody internal civil war. The warring Dawn and Dignity factions, as well as an international coalition of actors, signed the UN-backed Libyan Political Agreement with provisions for a new Presidential Council and Government of National Accord. The UN-backed Presidential Council led by Prime Minister Fayez Seraj arrived in Tripoli on March 30 and began operating out of a heavily-guarded naval base.

However, the Libyan Political Agreement was signed without guaranteeing an adequate governance structure and, more importantly, without a sufficient security sector arrangement to back the political system. Tripoli’s self-declared National Salvation (Dawn) government announced they were stepping down on April 5, but the new unity government’s 18 members have so far failed to secure a vote of approval from internationally supported Tobruk-based House of Representatives (Dignity), as required by the agreement.

Over the past few years, the Dawn and Dignity factions have splintered to the point where they exist in name only, and many local actors view the national leaders who signed the agreement as unauthorized to act on their behalf. Dawn and Dignity remain more focused on fighting each other than the Islamic State; they use ISIS as a pretext to fight local rivals over political supremacy, turf and economic resources. Both continue to accuse each other of collaborating with ISIS.

This is complicated with the involvement of outside actors: Turkey, Qatar and Sudan support the Islamist Dawn faction in western Libya based in Tripoli, while Egypt and the United Arab Emirates support the more secular, internationally recognized Dignity faction in the east, in Tobruk. The faction in the Tobruk-based House of Representatives opposes the agreement because it excludes their revered General Khalifa Haftar, while in the west, the faction wants a greater share of the country’s resources. Both sides hold deeply ingrained prejudice and mistrust for one another.

The US has a strong stake in a secure Libya, thanks to its proximity to US allies, abundant oil reserves and potential for the conflict to spill over and cause further instability in the region. The West continues to monitor the situation in Libya with concern. In late February, Italy granted the US permission to launch drone strikes from Sicily against ISIS efforts in Libya and northern Africa. The Pentagon has proposed some $200 million for the coming year to train and equip North and West African armies. The US military is also in the process of building a base in Agadez, Niger, which is strategically positioned for its Reaper surveillance aircraft to conduct missions in Libya.

Most significantly, the US, France and the UK have been preparing to launch a second intervention in Libya for months, and have already set up a Coalition Coordination Center in Rome. Officials at the U.S. Africa Command are developing dozens of potential targets across Libya for American and European warplanes, ranging from the ISIS stronghold in Sirte to Ajdabiya, Sabratha and the militant stronghold of Derna. The EU held a meeting on April 5 to consider deploying a civilian security mission in Libya to back the new unity government, helping train security forces and improving border security.

However, such an outside intervention without a clearly unified government or security force would be a disaster. It would, at the very least, sharpen political fault lines. Continuing the current Western strategy of special operations forces training and advising Libyan militias could exacerbate factional conflict and reduce the incentives for political reconciliation. There is no clear answer as to who and what faction will control the country’s armed forces. The US and its allies should be careful not to rush into Libya with a mass of weapons and force without a clearly defined road for political and economic development.

The overarching goal and method in Libya should be discreet and encourage the formation of a political and security strategy—one that brings the political and armed factions into a singular government, which has not existed for the last two years. Currently, the US, Britain, and France have military advisers operating on the ground, as well as aircraft conducting reconnaissance flights and strikes. These allies as well as organizations such as NATO should lend military assistance in a way that promotes reconciliation and cooperation between rival ground forces and ties the military assistance in the fight against ISIS to a process of integration of local militias into a national command structure. The US, Europe, and other Arab nations also should make firm military commitments to the Libya International Assistance Mission, which will help legitimize the unity government and impose order. US counterterrorism efforts must include the establishment of larger regional coordination mechanisms among local militias, setting the stage for a cohesive, democratically controlled and centralized military. It is imperative that the US get the Gulf States on the same page, but this is complicated by the lack of foreign embassies in Libya and direct dialogue with faction leaders. Tunisia has re-opened its embassy in Tripoli following the installation of the new GNA and France has stated its intention to do so, a promising first step.

Once the unity government is firmly established, the US and its allies need to address the root causes of radicalism by reforming the oil-driven economy, supporting civil society and municipal development, and carefully training the army and police while restructuring defense institutions. The West needs to ensure that the strategy against ISIS unites local forces instead of polarizing them. The reality on the ground is a complicated one: a transactional society, hundreds of militias, competing ethnic and tribal affiliations, aggressive regional loyalties that any one day can include home-grown and foreign-born radicals, neighbors simply seeking to defend their homes and families, gangs stealing oil and wealth and engaging in gratuitous violence, tribes in states of cold and hot wars against one another for generations, and regional actors exploiting or protecting natural resources like oil and water. But a stable Libya is critical to ensuring the security of US allies in North Africa, especially Egypt and Tunisia, and the US should be willing to provide full backing to a unified Libyan government through economic, security and counter-terrorism assistance—that is, once (and if) it becomes firmly established.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have shocked and outraged the French, Europeans and people all over the world. Undoubtedly, the tragedy will have a heavy impact on Western countries’ foreign policy in the Middle East. But perhaps less obvious is the profound effects it might have on the domestic political scene in France and across Europe. Terrorism inherently evokes a country’s preoccupation with securing its borders; but taken to too far, extreme nationalistic attitudes can spill into xenophobia. France has already seen a rise in the popularity of extreme right nationalistic parties, a phenomenon correlated to escalating ethnic and religious tensions, controversy over immigration and an overall concern with the effects of cultural mixing. As radical Islamism inspires fear in the population with horrific acts of terrorism, a more nationalistic, reactionary France may emerge.

Founded in 1972 as the French manifestation of the European neofascist movement, the Front National (FN) party has always supported nationalism and controls on immigration, stances that often earned it criticism for “fostering xenophobia and anti-Semitism.” Though the party’s popularity rose and fell throughout the last decades of the century, FN has been firmly held as a fringe group; “it placed itself in opposition to virtually the entirety of the political mainstream,” which in France already encompassed the ideologically extreme French Communist Party. FN’s polemic image was largely maintained by the controversial nature of its longtime leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Some of his public comments downplaying the Holocaust have stirred widespread criticism, not to mention a three-month suspended sentence and a Euro 10,000 fine imposed by French courts in 2005 for violation of France’s Holocaust denial statue.

But since Le Pen’s daughter Marine Le Pen took over party leadership in 2011, the National Front has undergone a reinvention. Distancing herself from her father’s radical image, Le Pen has striven to “recast the FN as a credible alternative to France’s major mainstream parties” with considerable success. FN’s performance improved steadily between the 2011 cantonal elections, the 2012 presidential elections – in the first round Le Pen finished third behind Sarkozy and socialist Hollande – and the 2014 local elections. Just last year, FN had a record performance in the May 2015 elections for European Parliament representatives; the party captured around a quarter of the popular vote, finishing first overall.

Having shed its former image as a stigmatized fringe group, the FN has now solidified its position as a legitimate, mainstream party in French politics. The facility of this transformation stems from Le Pen’s masterful leadership, manifested in her ability to capitalize on growing trends in the French populace and rebrand her party to cater to the anxieties of the French. For instance, FN appeals to a growing sector of the French population who see the European Union as an economic hindrance rather than a mutually beneficial institution, especially in light of recent economic stagnation and widespread unemployment. In her support of economic protectionism, Le Pen “has been masterful in channeling French fears of being swallowed by a hostile world.”

In addition to utilizing growing opposition to the free-market, liberal economics associated with the current political regime and seen as damaging to France’s working class, Le Pen has proven adept at harnessing growing concern about immigration and terrorism. Having “detoxified” the FN’s former image as a “dubious protest party of xenophobes, anti-Semites and die-hard fascists,” she is able to present nationalistic rhetoric and policy as legitimate and even necessary to protect France in light of recent terrorist attacks. By cleansing the FN of its former anti-Semitism, Le Pen has shifted the party’s focus to speaking out against the preferred scapegoat of the day: Muslim immigrants.  

In a news conference following the Paris attacks, Le Pen came out with a strong public statement: “We are living the horror… yesterday evening the centre of France was struck by exceptional barbarity. It was an escalation of Islamist terrorism and the sixth time this year that Islamists have attacked our country.” Such a statement is hard to dispute in light of the facts: indeed, France has seen an unprecedented number of terrorist attacks in 2015 attributed to extreme Islamic fundamentalists.

But the last attack differs from previous ones like Charlie Hebdo and the shooting at a kosher supermarket, not only in scale but also in the intended target. Prior attacks were aimed at particular people: journalists seen as deriding Islam, or specifically French Jews. But the November 13 attacks were indiscriminate in their violence against French citizens, rendering it a symbolic attack against all of France. As such, it is not difficult to imagine that more and more French citizens will tune into Le Pen’s rhetoric when she deems it “essential that France recover the control of its national borders, once and for all.” Such assertions resonate all the more loudly considering that the suspected mastermind of the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was an IS militant who spent time living in Syria and Belgium and entered the EU posing as a refugee.

Le Pen is more primed than ever for a 2017 presidential bid. According to a recent poll conducted by the Institu français d’opinion publique (IFOP), she holds the lead in three different scenarios. Asking participants which candidate they would be most likely to vote for if the presidential election were tomorrow, the poll found that Le Pen would come in first with 28% of the popular vote if competing against centrist Francois Bayrou and centre-right Nicolas Sarkozy. Though such polls can often be misleading and should not be taken too literally, these results nonetheless reveal Le Pen’s current popularity with the French electorate.

These findings also force one to imaging what a France led by Le Pen would look like. Certainly the FN would be placed in a better position than ever to influence domestic policy on immigration; just last week, she proclaimed that “France must ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques, and kick out foreigners who are preaching hatred on our soil, as well as illegal immigrants who have nothing to do here.” One can safely assume that entering France as a Muslim immigrant – or a refugee – would become much more difficult, and that even immigrants already living in France would face increasing discrimination.

In terms of foreign policy, Le Pen has been less outspoken, but one can speculate about the effect that a FN-dominated France might have on Europe and the world at large. Given the Eurosceptic identity of the FN, France could distance itself from the EU, which would seriously undercut the institution’s potential for coordinated action and its overall economic and military efficacy. As one of its largest members, France is a top contributor of money and resources to EU causes and holds a disproportionate sway in European decision-making. Le Pen’s protectionism has the potential to undermine EU economic integration—the single, defining characteristic of today’s Europe. Her emphasis on border protection would also contradict one of the EU’s flagship policies: the freedom of movement. In short, a France governed by the FN has the potential to reshape the character of Europe. Le Pen’s newfound popularity threatens a reversal of the region’s decade-long progression toward an identity as a liberal and open zone of free-flowing money, people and ideas, designed for the benefit of all its members.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

Jack Anderson
The term “Global War on Terror” may have been phased out by the Obama administration, but it continues nonetheless; terror attacks know no bounds. Islamic terrorists continue to display an apparently insatiable desire to wreak havoc upon both their fellow Muslims and more broadly throughout the world. Friday’s tragic attacks in Paris are the latest manifestation of the Islamic State’s limitless brand of jihad.

The attacks in Paris come in the wake of attacks against civilians in Lebanon and the bombing of a Russian jet over the Sinai peninsula. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for all three. Taken together, these attacks reveal a startling truth about the ISIS: the organization is indeed waging a global war, and it is a war of ideas. The Islamic State firmly believes in its own brand of Sharia law and the validity of its self-proclaimed caliphate. In their eyes, both Muslims and non-Muslims who do not prescribe to its doctrines are valid targets for extermination. They do not differentiate between the Muslim and non-Muslim victims they have slaughtered.

Defeating ISIS will take more than a coordinated military campaign; an ideological battle must also be waged within the Muslim world. The Islamic State is very attractive for Muslims who believe that society is broken and that the caliphate based in Raqqa is the beginning of a new, bright future. Bombs and bullets cannot destroy that idea. American, French, British, Turkish, Russian, Iranian and Syrian forces might someday annihilate the Islamic State, but the allure of a caliphate cannot be bombed into submission. The West cannot dictate the proper way to practice Islam. As much as the West pontificates about the value of non-violent Islam, no one outside the Muslim world can easily persuade people against joining ISIS or other jihadist groups. That effort must come from within the Islamic community. But this kind of ideological effort is largely absent. The Islamic world needs a charismatic leader and a mass movement to publicly and demonstrably oppose the use of religiously inspired violence. Until that movement occurs and produces a more popular and peaceful vein of Islamic politics, jihad will persist and the world can expect further terrorist attacks.

Katya Lopatko
The Paris attacks will only exacerbate the trend of nationalistic revival in France and across Europe. Historic examples suggest that it is almost inevitable that a terrorist attack by outsiders on a nation’s soil will stir up prejudice against people perceived as associated with the attackers. In the US, we need not think beyond post-Pearl Harbor Japanese internment camps or post-9/11 Islamophobia. In France, we have already observed a dramatic rise in anti-Muslim incidents in the wake of Charlie Hebdo and the other terrorist attacks of early 2015. I don’t see this trend abating anytime soon.

Terrorism, by nature, is designed to engender mass hysteria. It breeds paranoid fear of the other within a nation, making it easy for xenophobic politics to appeal to citizens on a powerful, emotional level. In France, the extreme-right National Front party has already been climbing in the polls as ethnic and religious tensions rise, and the Paris shootings will likely boost the party’s popularity further.

Marine Le Pen, the party’s leader, declared in a news conference the day following the attacks that “France and the French are no longer safe. It is my duty to tell you so.” With such a statement, Le Pen clearly exploits her people’s fear in the aftermath of tragedy to push forward her party’s nationalistic agenda. She goes on to urge France to secure its national borders – EU freedom of movement be damned – strengthen its military and police forces, and, most shockingly, “ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques, and kick out foreigners who are preaching hatred on our soil, as well as illegal immigrants who have nothing to do here.”

Unfortunately, the unprecedented scale and level of coordination of the recent attacks grant Le Pen’s exhortations an air of credibility. Her underlying message boils down to “I told you so”: the National Front has been warning France about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and religious extremism for years, and now, more and more French might begin to take them seriously.

In the following hours and days after the attack, Muslims in France and around the world took to social media to denounce the terrorist attacks and express their solidarity with Paris with hashtags like “#MuslimsAreNotTerrorists” and “#NotInMyName”. Some even tweeted a quote from the Qur’an: “Whoever kills an innocent person it is as if he has killed all of humanity” (5:32). I can only hope that France, and the rest of the world, will hear this loud enough to drown out nationalist paranoia; we’ll all need to unite to fight the real enemy.

Kenneth Lee
ISIS’s attack on Paris was well-organized, coordinated and able to create mass damage and casualties with simple technology. Most poignantly , it was able to sneak past the security and intelligence infrastructure that blankets the “Western World”. The answer, then, cannot be more security, surveillance, border controls and other domestically invasive policies.

The unfortunate reality we must deal with is that as long as ISIS has a base in the Middle East (even if their territorial ambitions are “contained”, using the words of President Obama), terrorist attempts are inevitable whether it is somewhere in the Middle East (e.g. Beirut), in the skies, in Europe or in the United States.  ISIS is a religious state: its actions and the actions of its followers are rationalized using religion and the promise of an afterlife that rewards violence and martyrdom. The group is also fully invested in asymmetric warfare, as it cannot compete against conventional armies. As long as this state exists, the idea of extremism will remain strong – fueled by propaganda, weapons, money and the existence of thousands of fighters – and more young people and innocent civilians will die. This also means that barring the complete elimination of freedoms, there will be gaps in security that terrorists can take advantage of.

Hopefully, this attack will be an important wake up call for actual military action to destroy ISIS. People criticize military strikes as ineffective to solving the root problems of extremism, as it destroys the material aspects and can strengthen the ISIS ideology of “War with the West”. However, ideas of extremism will always exist – the fact that Nazism still exists attests to this – but completely destroying ISIS as a material state, which is a potent physical symbol, and enfranchising arab minority youths in the West will go a long way to significantly reduce the strength of terrorism to a point where it does not threaten global stability. In the long run, the solution should be to develop the Middle East’s government institutions and economy—but that is easier said than done. It will be a true tragedy if the inertia of inaction prevents us from acting against ISIS in a full-fledged military fashion and instead draws our attention inward solely toward domestic “targets”, Arab Muslim minorities and refugees in Europe, and domestic security issues. Engaging in a full-fledged military response against ISIS will not be easy or simple, but it is the most straight-forward option to reduce the threat of extremist terrorism in a significant way. Destroy the state and its infrastructure, and extremist ideology will face far more hurdles than it currently does.

Andre Gray
American writer Tao Lin writes in one of his short stories of an era where, “During any moment, it was feared, a terrorist might tunnel up into your house and replace your dog with something that resembled your dog but was actually a bomb.” That’s the classic picture of what terrorism is useful for: generating mass fear and mass horror, with cynical media frenzy and controversial Facebook solidarity alongside. Although ISIS has claimed Friday’s attack, their intentions are confusing. ISIS has always been about state building; so what’s the geopolitical calculus in provoking France and, in the case of the plane crash, Russia into more dramatic involvement in Syria? Was the idea to intimidate Europe out of the region (the jury is still out as to whether Europe has been intimidated)? Or was it a tit-for-tat war games response to the increase in French air strikes? In either case I don’t see an intelligent, strategic mind behind these shootings—the kind of mind that planned 9/11 and incited the wars which allowed contemporary terrorism to flourish. I see a blunt, religious instrument. And I hope I’m right in thinking that this will turn out to be a regrettable mistake by ISIS leading to a more coordinated Western (and Russian) effort against them. By effort, I mean something military and difficult and inevitably violent. What would be really scary is if this kind of disaster did not work to unify Europe’s foreign policy. There’s nothing as disheartening as a terrorist attack that turns out to have been geopolitically clever. Or worse, good marketing.

Dan Morgan-Russell
This is a terrorist attack. ISIS conducts terrorist attacks to scare people. Scared people make mistakes. Scared leaders overzealously bomb and prematurely invade. Policy motivated by fear is rarely good policy.

Europe needs to slow down, cool off, mourn the dead and make a better plan to confront ISIS in the next year. Stopping ISIS will require ground troops and pacification, not drone strikes or bombing runs.

The hysteria will pass. France will recover. Europe will probably not engage ISIS beyond militarily superficial airstrikes.

Claire Cahoon
Perhaps the most important internal issue that the tragedy in Paris could spark is a new refugee crisis; at least one of the perpetrators of the attack may have crossed the border into Greece disguised as a refugee. If this information is verified, Europe will have to completely reconsider their handling of the refugee crisis and their open border policy.

The most immediate reaction is going to be a social one—refugees already face stigma and hatred from nationalistic European groups (my fellow correspondent Katya Lopatko discusses this in more detail). These groups, as well as those initially opposed to allowing refugees into Europe, have already started using Friday’s attacks to stir up fear about border security.

The EU has said that they do not see a need to change their refugee policy because of the attacks. But some world leaders, such as Poland’s minister for European Relations, have said that they will not take any more refugees until border security is heightened. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the Schengen agreement. The agreement was already on thin ice; days before the attack happened, European Council President Donald Tusk said “the future of Schengen is at stake and time is running out.” If world leaders do not trust their European neighbors to secure the border properly and handle refugees with precision, the internal borders of Europe may no longer flow freely.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker reminded world leaders on Sunday that “those who organized these attacks, and those who carried them out, are exactly those who the refugees are fleeing.” However, it is clear that some member states are not convinced that current policy is enough to protect their borders. At best, it is about to get a lot more uncomfortable to be a refugee in Europe—at worst, refugee status in Europe is about to become impossible.

Alma Velazquez
Those who say the Paris attacks were mindless and lacking in strategy are misguided. The Islamic State is trying to evoke an apocalyptic clash of civilizations that will drive Western Muslims into their waiting arms. Extreme retaliatory responses will only work in their favor.

A fellow correspondent (Jack Anderson) highlighted the dramatic schism within Islam. The Islamic State, stuck in 7^th century religious practices, seeks to build a society where ancient texts exercise full and literal jurisdiction. ISIS believes there will be an epic End of Days battle, and any attacks on the West are meant to further polarize what they call “Rome” and the “crusaders” from the Islamic army in a lead-up to the final confrontation.

The backward al-Qaeda offshoot is indeed primarily focused on state building and territorial acquisition. But attacks such as those carried out in Paris play into their long-term goal of forcing Muslim apostates to choose: will they pledge allegiance to the khalifah or will they join Western infidels? In the official statement claiming responsibility for the attacks, ISIS makes the options clear. The symbolism behind Paris as a target is founded in a direct cultural opposition to Islamic values as interpreted by ISIS. The rock concert at the Bataclan, for example, was full of foolish and perverse “idolaters”.

These attacks are a divisive wedge, meant to pit the West against Islam and vice versa — whether through the escalation of military force abroad or through an ideological backlash in policy domestically. Both have the potential to alienate Muslim communities everywhere. Excessive military violence and a refusal to accept refugees is just what ISIS wants. As other correspondents have iterated, actions in both spheres must be weighed against a larger plan. US and European leaders must account for the Islamic State’s permanent goals, and avoid any temporary fix that would only make their actions predictable. Bombing another Syrian city, at the expense of civilian casualties to hunt a non-state actor will not only be ineffective— it will create new enemies and give existing ones representational power. So will translating Islamophobia into policy. After all, lest we forget, many ISIS members are European passport holders.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

With the value of the euro at a 12-year low, Europe’s immigration issues are in the spotlight as tourists flock there to take advantage of the cheap currency. While visitors expect to see the famous buildings, historical plazas and pretty canals, they may not expect to see dilapidated shantytowns lining the roads from the airport, or masses of impoverished immigrants on Europe’s cobblestone streets. While managing migrants is a Europe-wide challenge, nowhere is the immigration issue more evident than in France, where the accession of new member states into the EU has put the country face-to-face with the “Roma problem.”

Exercising their right to free movement, migratory Roma (often called gypsies) are motivated to move to France and other Western member states by the extreme poverty they face in their home countries, largely Romania and Bulgaria. But Roma in France suffer from a disproportionately high rate of poverty, and are often forced to live in shantytowns without running water, heat or electricity. Additionally, many Roma resort to begging due to a lack of education and poor French, only to face charges under the French law claiming “exploitation of begging and illegal land occupation” as grounds for deportation, even of EU citizens.

And while many of the migratory Roma’s children are born in France, they too suffer from social stigmatization and consequently encounter challenges such as enrolling in and attending school, learning French, and gaining the skills and knowledge needed to become productive French citizens.

As is, the Roma face considerable challenges, but France’s 1978 data collection law complicates the matter further. The law states in Article 8 that it is illegal to collect data of any kind that reveals the “racial or ethnic origins… of persons.” Though meant to protect against the discrimination of certain groups, in this case it has had the opposite effect, allowing for the continued stigmatization of the Roma.

Article 8 of this law makes it illegal to collect data that would classify the Roma as Roma—even if collected in an effort to help alleviate their suffering. For example, when NGOs try to implement solutions to the immigration problem, they are unable to properly classify the Roma as an ethnic group, leading to an inability to present policy proposals aimed specifically towards them.

This is, however, an ethnic problem – whether legally dubbed one or not – divided along cultural lines and filled with racist undertones. A report by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) lists instances of violence by French against the Roma, including an instance where perpetrators beat a 17-year-old Roma boy to unconsciousness, stuffed him into a shopping trolley and left him on the roadside. While this is one of the most extreme examples, an estimated one in five Roma in the EU has experienced racist violence (French-specific numbers are not available because unlike anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim hate crimes, crimes against Roma are not kept as “disaggregated data”). The ERRC report also includes instances of public hate speech against the Roma, many voiced by well-known and popular politicians. But perhaps France’s most infamous treatment of the Roma is the practice of forced evictions.

Systematic forced evictions, or the illegal removal of individuals without notice or provisions of alternate housing options, were at the center of former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2010 media scandal. Sarkozy targeted migrant camps, calling them “sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards, of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime.” And while his defense rested on the notion that the evictions did not specifically target Roma, they nonetheless resulted in an estimated removal of tens of thousands of Roma from France. But while many blame Sarkozy for France’s bad press in regards to immigration, President Francois Hollande (who in 2012 pledged to move away from Sarkozy’s strict policies) continues to reinforce eviction practices today. The same ERRC report estimates that an average of three Roma slums are evicted each week, totaling in 2014 to 13,483 Roma forced to leave their dwellings, many deported shortly after.  

The EU has recognized this illegal practice – prohibited under the EU’s human rights laws to which France agreed to follow – as blatant discrimination, condemned as such by Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. In a press briefing, she spoke of the illegality of the French eviction policies, calling them an outright “disgrace”:

I personally have been appalled by a situation which gave the impression that people are being removed from a Member State of the European Union just because they belong to a certain ethnic minority. This is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War.

So herein lies the dilemma: France’s law prohibits the singling out of groups based on ethnicity and race in the effort to combat discrimination. However the eviction policies of the past five years provide clear evidence that discrimination against the Roma occurs nonetheless. But to stop that discrimination, groups cannot create or advocate policy aimed at specifically helping the Roma. So what are they left to do?

France should be motivated to improve conditions for the Roma, pressured by the EU’s call for the country to better commit itself to the Community’s integration initiatives—not to mention the nearly 16 billion euros allocated from the EU to the nation partially for that purpose. France is also surrounded by other EU member states that have found better solutions to the “Roma problem.” From Roma political participation in Macedonia, to perhaps the most well-known case of Spain and its successes in integrating the Roma through education and access to social services, EU countries are leaving the once progressive France far behind.

Maybe the greatest hope for integration comes from the shifting attitudes of French citizens in regards to the Roma. The 2008 Eurobarometer report that provides statistical data about the perceived levels of discrimination in EU countries reveals that 48% of French people would be comfortable having Roma as neighbors. The 2012 report says that 55% of the French are critical of the effectiveness of the government’s Roma integration policies, 91% acknowledge that Roma are at risk of discrimination and 59% believe that Roma integration would benefit society overall.

Nevertheless, these hopes have yet to be met with any effective action, and the Roma face continued stigmatization in France. Even though NGOs want to help the Roma – and increasingly more and more French citizens too – France’s data collection law prevents any collective action that intends to benefit this specific ethnic group. So until France embraces more integrative measures, tourists will continue to bear witness to Europe’s pressing immigration challenge.  

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

At the G7 summit in Germany this past month, world leaders from developed nations pledged to completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100 in an attempt to mitigate climate change. If this weighty goal is to be reached, a transition to alternative energy needs to begin within the decade. The question on everyone’s mind—is renewable energy ready to replace fossil fuels?

The short answer is no. Renewable energy has made significant technological advances in the last decade, but has yet to reach a cost that is low enough to satisfy consumer demand. An assortment of problems has prohibited renewables from becoming competitive; mainly, sources of renewable energy are inconsistent and geographically limited. Until these challenges are overcome, nuclear power needs to be taken seriously as an attractive stand-in. Problems that previously overshadowed its benefits have largely been resolved by recent technological developments, making increasing nuclear production a more feasible and immediate method of climate mitigation than expanding renewable energy.

The major improvements needed to increase the viability of renewables are in energy storage and transportation. A new generation of batteries, led by the Tesla Powerwall, seems to overcome the obstacle of intermittency, but once again the price is just too high. Tesla is asking for a whopping $7,140 for the installation of its residential battery—much more than the average household is willing to pay. Furthermore, improvements in electrical infrastructure, i.e. the power grid, have been few and far between. Presently, it isn’t feasible to transport electricity from the rural areas where wind and solar energy are often generated. Although the marginal cost of wind turbines and solar panels has steadily declined, it is still relatively expensive to use renewable energy due to the issues of storage and transportation. For the time being, renewable energy is not competitive enough to replace fossil fuels, and a different alternative is needed.

In the campaign to drastically reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the only “quick-fix” that has proven viable is nuclear energy, which generates enormous amounts of zero-carbon electricity and rivals the cost efficiency of fossil fuels. A standard reactor can produce enough energy to supply 690,000 households with electricity. Nuclear energy could be used to curb China’s growing emissions and limit its consumption of coal, which currently accounts for almost 70% of its energy sector. In contrast to wind and solar, nuclear energy can be produced constantly and therefore does not require storage. Developed nations could run nuclear energy as their base-load supply of electricity, and then have intermittent renewables pick up the slack during peak demand.

France, which derives approximately 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, is an ideal model for the energy structure of developed nations. France is the largest net exporter of energy in the world, with an annual profit of well over $3 billion. The French government has used the capability of its nuclear power to advance aggressive environmental policies; in 2014, the French government established a long-term target to reduce greenhouse gas emission to 40% of 1990 levels by 2030, dwarfing targets set by the United States and other developed nations. Furthermore, France is not dependent on foreign energy and is therefore less vulnerable to political instability. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe should take note; nuclear energy might be a solution to dependence on Russian gas.

Nonetheless, nuclear power has suffered its own share of setbacks over the years. A list of nuclear accidents – most recently Fukushima Daiichi – has created the perception that nuclear energy is unsafe. There is also unease over the security of nuclear power plants, which have been identified as potential terrorist targets. To top it all off, environmentalists have expressed concerns over the limited amount of uranium available and the long-term toxicity of radioactive waste. However, technology has surmounted many of these challenges.

In 2011, a tsunami disabled the cooling system of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, bringing Japan close to its first nuclear meltdown. Reports would later reveal that the Fukushima accident was the result of inadequate regulations and obsolete safety measures. Updated nuclear reactors include passive safety mechanisms that eliminate the possibility of human error by relying on gravity, heat resistance and natural convection. Presumably, the crisis would have been avoided had the proper standards been in place.

Despite this fact, anti-nuclear protests erupted in many countries in the wake of Fukushima, and in some cases led to the eradication of nuclear energy. Most notably, Germany, which previously produced a quarter of its electricity using nuclear power, instituted a phase-out plan to shutdown all of its reactors by 2022. Fear of a nuclear meltdown drove the German government to begin decommissioning 17 reactors, all of which had been deemed safe by the Reactor Safety Commission. As a consequence, power plants that use coal and natural gas have had to increase production, emitting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Critics of Germany’s phase-out plan point out that Japan, home to the most recent nuclear accident, still maintains a robust network of nuclear power plants with improved safety systems. There is no reason that nuclear power plants with updated safety measure should be deactivated.

In addition to improvements in safety, nuclear power plants are now secure and well protected from threats of terrorism. Experts previously worried that an organization like al-Qaeda would blow up a reactor and expose the general public to radiation. However, reactors are encased in steel-reinforced concrete to prevent the escape of radiation and the intrusion of foreign objects. Computer simulations, for example, have concluded that a nuclear reactor would survive the impact of a large commercial airliner.

Concerns over the long-term supply of uranium have been satisfied by recent estimates of the world’s economically accessible uranium, which predict that at the present rate of consumption there is enough to last over 200 years. Breeder reactors, which allow for the recycling of uranium, have already decreased fuel consumption. At the moment, a single uranium fuel pellet – measuring the size of an average fingertip – produces a quantity of energy equivalent to 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Additionally, these fuel supply projections will likely be extended as nuclear science continues to improve.

Fuel-efficient reactors have also decreased the amount of nuclear waste generated. Historically, radioactive waste has been stored at the nuclear power plant where it is produced. Thus far, this method of management has been effective, but it is contingent on the existence of an organization that oversees the site for tens of thousands of years—the amount of time its takes for radioactive waste to completely decay. Although there is currently no long-term plan to manage radioactive waste, new methods of storage can be developed and implemented to limit the associated risks.

The upfront cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is one remaining impediment to nations that might wish to copy France’s model, such as Eastern European nations hoping to decrease their reliance on Russian gas. Recent evaluations calculate the cost (including financing) of constructing a nuclear power plant to be between $6 billion and $9 billion. No individual private actor can afford to finance a power plant of this expense without government subsidies. Despite the controversy over government intervention, handouts are common in the energy sector. Last year, government subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $550 billion worldwide. Tax dollars would be better spent on nuclear energy.

When world leaders meet in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) this December, they will attempt to produce a universally binding agreement on the reduction of carbon emissions. The goal is to prevent global temperatures from crossing the two-degree threshold, which many scientists have labeled the tipping point of climate change. World leaders will need to be proactive in their reductions rather than continuing to wait for a breakthrough in renewables.

Ultimately, there needs to be a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but the short-term fix is nuclear. More research and development is needed before renewable energy can be considered a practical solution. Fortunately, the countries that are the greatest emitters of green house gases already possess nuclear capabilities, so there is no need for a proliferation of nuclear knowledge. If China and the United States alone increase their nuclear power, the prospects of a stable global temperature are much more likely. Nuclear energy is the stepping-stone between the industrial revolution and a renewable revolution. COP 21 is a chance to rekindle the conversation about nuclear power.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Following international headlines as of late, it would appear that the top story coming out of France concerns President François Hollande’s personal (read: intimate) life. Interestingly, none of the major American and British news agencies or papers mentioned France’s Jour de Colère (Day of Rage) demonstration that took place on January 26 in Paris. Numbering 17,000 according to the French police, and upwards of 120,000 according to other reports, the demonstration called primarily for the resignation of President Hollande. And the unrest had nothing to do with his personal life. Anger over unemployment, taxation, and a perceived infringement on civil liberties were just a few of the complaints levied by the demonstrators. The French media reported on the demonstrations, but the only substantial English-language news to be found was by VICE and consisted of a report by two eyewitnesses who left before the protests became violent.

The apparent media blackout surrounding this protest makes it hard to determine what the impact of the protest was and who the protesters were. According to the protest organizers, the demonstration does not endorse any particular political party or figure, but upon closer examination their poster design suggests alignment with the far-right Front National (FN) party. A YouTube report of the protest revealed that among the demonstrators were neo-Nazis, members of the FN, members of the right wing student group Union pour la Démocratie Française (Union for French Democracy) dressed in all black, and a large contingent of Catholic-royalists. Some protesters called for a putsch or military coup, claiming the French army was the only institution that has not been “corrupted.” Corrupted by what? It is not clear, but anti-Semitism, anti-gay, anti-European Union, and anti-Finance sentiments were strongly expressed.

The demonstrators, reminiscent of Tea Party activists, claim a deep love for their country as well as being defenders of “French identity.” It is unclear what that identity constitutes, but demonstrators made clear what it did not include. In addition to wanting to expel France’s Jews and immigrants – the government is already taking care of the Roma – demonstrators appeared to reject France’s democratic institutions. Cries of phony elections and a dictator president were just some of the sentiments expressed.

Aside from statements by Manuel Valls, the Minister of the Interior who is often the target of anti-Semitic hate speech for his perceived closeness to the Jewish community, noteworthy is the lack of condemnation from the French government. Valls condemned the violence and hate speech before the national assembly in a two-minute statement. He noted that a far-right rally of these proportions has not occurred in recent memory and the level of hatred expressed towards Jews was concerning. Valls condemned those who felt his deployment of law enforcement was excessive. He also passionately called for a unified rejection of the hate, anti-Semitism, and defamation of the French Republic the demonstrators represented. This message of unity is one seldom heard from French politicians. If the members of the National Assembly had any courage, they would do well to echo Valls’ condemnation of the protests. Instead, far-right deputies interrupted Valls thirty seconds into his speech and order had to be restored.

France is a vital country in the EU and the Eurozone; its depressed economy remains the 5^th largest in the world. A protest of tens of thousands of citizens on the far right in Paris does not mean that France will go the way of Greece. Nevertheless, the trend towards nationalism and xenophobia coupled with economic downturn is not new – it led to the rise of Fascism in Europe and should not be taken lightly by anyone. If you can hear the people sing, you may want to listen, especially in a country that has a propensity for violent revolutions.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the identity of France’s Interior Minister. Glimpse apologizes for any confusion.

In Islamabad, Pakistan, people clamored for a reservation to sample the new and exclusive French restaurant in the heart of the city. The city is a hotbed for different cultures and people, where wealthy Pakistanis mingle with foreign diplomats and ex-pats, blurring lines and creating an international environment. ‘La Maison,’ a new hit with ex-pats, was being talked about around town. Excited at the prospect of sampling authentic French cuisine, the restaurant had reservations booked up to several days in advance. There was only one condition that had to be satisfied in order to gain entrance to the fashionable restaurant – proof that you weren’t Pakistani.

Philippe Lafforgue opened ‘La Maison’ in October 2013 with the idea of serving food for ex-pats working in the capitol city of Islamabad. Claiming that his foreigner-only policy was not discriminatory but rather culturally sensitive, Lafforgue argued that he did not want to be arrested for serving a Muslim customer an alcoholic beverage or a pork dish. Additionally, he claimed his dishes were not prepared in a halal manner with many menu items requiring the use of alcohol and that changing the ingredients of the recipes would compromise the authenticity of his French food. Like many Islamic nations, Pakistan has dietary laws imposed on its Muslim citizens, mainly, the ban of pork and alcohol. Although Lafforgue has a right to refuse serving Muslims alcohol, a policy found in many hotels throughout Islamic nations in the Middle East and Asia, he has gone farther than others by denying entrance into his restaurant despite hiring a Pakistani chef, bartender, kitchen and service staff.

In Pakistan, The restaurant has been met with criticism from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Journalist Cyril Alemida, who initially brought the restaurant’s discriminatory policy to light when he was rejected due to his possession of a Pakistani passport asked, “How does a foreigner run this money-spinning business out of the heart of the Pakistani capital, and not let Pakistanis in… And how does he get to ask me to produce my passport? He’s not an airport. He’s not an international authority. He’s not an embassy. How can he do this? Reserving the right to admission doesn’t mean an entire category of people [can be]written off.”

Many locals are crying foul and have reported the establishment to the police. “It’s absolutely ridiculous,” says Pakistani-American Bushra Mateen. “My family left their home, the country of their ancestors, and the home of all of their history, to start a new life free from oppression. We left, so that no one could reject us for our skin color or religion. And now this guy comes along and tells me I can’t eat in my own country. I am not a dog, I am not an Indian, I am supposed to be in my home.” Ms. Mateen refers to the “No Dogs and Indians” rule that was prominent in the region during the rule of the British Raj, which for Pakistanis, is reminiscent of the British Apartheid and the subsequent partition that forced many families to leave their homes.

Eventually, talk of the restaurant’s policy reached the ears of Yasir Afridi, an assistant to the superintendent of the Islamabad Police. Afridi attempted to make a reservation and found that, true to the talk of the town, he would be unable to dine at ‘La Maison.’ Following his rejection, he led a raid on ‘La Maison’ and discovered over 300 bottles of un-registered liquor. Although Lafforgue claims that as a foreigner he is allowed to serve liquor to other foreigners, he is not under any diplomatic mission and is not operating a diplomat’s exclusive club, and therefore did not have the necessary licenses for his liquor cache. As of now, the restaurant has been shut down. However, Lafforgue has not given up yet, claiming that he will find a way to operate once again.