Here are the first four (slightly condensed) of eight sections from a policy proposal entitled France confronted by the Islamic question: credible choices for a French future, posted on August 11, 2014 by Aymeric Chauprade, foreign affairs counselor for Marine Le Pen, political scientist by profession, elected European deputy from Île-de-France on the Front National ticket, in May 2014.
There is a Wikipedia page in English for those interested in Chauprade's career.
In a brief introduction he reviews the end of the age of Arab nationalism, modernization and secularization in countries with Sunni leaders such as Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Hafez el Assad, authoritarians interested in development and in holding back the fanatical Sunni element. He expands on this in the first section:
Acknowledging the disappearance of Arab nationalism
The days of Arab nationalism have come and gone. Eroded by the corruption of its own elites, voluntarily devastated by American policy (an enemy of oil-producing nationalism) as much as by the enormous strategic error of Israel with which it could have reached an understanding to assure both the existence of a Palestinian State and the security of the Jewish State, Arab nationalism has signed its death certificate.
Note: He doesn't say what Israel's "enormous error" was. But it could not have been that a Palestinian State was never offered to the Arabs.
In September 2001, the probable collusion between a part of the American deep state and the Saudi deep state (the intelligence services), which was a sort of paroxystic outcome of a monstrous alliance born during the Afghan war with the Soviets, generated a planetary seismic wave. Sunni fundamentalism was unleashed while the United States, taking advantage of the "war against terrorism" attempted to oppose the utopia of a unipolar plan against the evidence of a multipolar world.
Note: A long article at Bill Moyers' website discusses the concept of "deep state", a type of conspiracy theory that assumes the State is not run by the elected officials but by the "deciders", those murky behind-the-scenes agents, bankers, lobbyists, who bend a country into the direction they want it to go no matter who is officially running the government. But is this really something new? And aren't the deciders for the most part progressives? George Soros and Bill Gates, to name just two who may be regarded as deciders, are Democrats. Of course, Chauprade is certainly tacitly alluding to the "neo-cons", the great nation builders who forced on the public, and presumably on George Bush, the notion that democracy was a universally desirable, necessary and inevitable system. But the "neo-cons" were for the most part former leftists who had given up the dream of Communism, only to replace it with democracy.
Partisans of American policy applauded in succession the war in Afghanistan against the Talibans that Washington, Islamabad and Riyad had created, the destruction of the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine in order to counteract a Russia reborn thanks to Vladimir Putin, or even the political isolation of Tehran on the pretext of a possible Iranian bomb.
Note: He then runs through the regime changes of the phony "Arab Spring".
This entire deadly enterprise of throats slit, decapitations, rapes of young Christian or Shia virgins, summary executions, prisoners buried alive, macabre videos posted at YouTube that are downloaded tens of thousands of times in our suburban ghettos, all of that we owe to our "magnificent allies", our new friends in the Middle East, bloated with petrodollars: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The record of Sarkozy and Hollande in the Middle East: Islamist chaos and crimes against humanity.
The last time our leaders showed a little common sense in the Middle East was in 2003 when Chirac refused to become involved in the American war in Iraq. Of course, our policy then was lagging behind History; of course, it clung to regimes that were nearing their end, but it was a policy of "the lesser evil" and that is already not so bad. At least our ambassadors, experts in Arab affairs at the time, before Sarkozy and Hollande replaced them with naive humanitarians if not cynical businessmen, at least these true ambassadors (…) were familiar with the complicated Middle East and anticipated the horrible ethnic carnage that was to occur inevitably in lieu and place of the old "secular" regimes.
We have the result of this madness before our eyes and the balance-sheet is not only that of Washington. No, it was not only Washington's fault as Sarkozy and Hollande (and Alain Juppé and Laurent Fabius as well) bear a very heavy responsibility in the ethnic genocides (Christians, Alaouites, Twelvers, Yazidis…) taking place today in Syria and Iraq just as they are directly responsible for the tribal massacres in Libya.
Note: Twelvers are Shia who believe in twelve imams. See Wikipedia.
Defending militarily the Christians of Iraq
In my view, through these choices Sarkozy and Hollande became accomplices of crimes against Humanity. At the very least this should disqualify them forever in the eyes of the French people.
Sarkozy more so than Hollande because, in the end, it was the UMP that broke most brutally with Charles de Gaulle's fundamentals of French foreign policy to align us with American, Qatari and Saudi foreign policy. But is Hollande any better, having sent in 2012 our army to attack the Syrian State, reviving the American ploy of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse? And now he has nothing to offer the Christians of Iraq in the throes of the Islamic State but some food packages?
We must help the Christians to remain in their homeland, to defend their villages, their churches, for they were the first in the Land of the East. I therefore support without reservation the American military strikes against the Islamic State and I affirm that it is in the interests and for the honor of France to join in these airstrikes. I am the first one to oppose the insane policy of the United States in Ukraine; I also know how to refuse a systematic line of thought, and am able to state that the Americans did the right thing by helping the Iraqi government.
Note: He goes on to say that this is not enough, that the French, having waged wars in Afghanistan, Libya, etc… for nothing, cannot content themselves with food packages.
Of course, I adhere strongly to the essential principle of non-intervention. But I also believe in the principle of civilizational solidarity. France still is, in my view, the eldest daughter of the Church, who helped the Christians in Lebanon in 1860, and those Christians are my brothers. It is, moreover, this principle that leads me to be critical of De Gaulle's unjust treatment of the Harkis, who had fought for France. I defend realpolitik, but never against the honor of France. France is a person, she has honor, not only interests. It is therefore this principle of civilizational solidarity that can, in exceptional cases, justify intervention.
Note: He then repeats the need to help the Christians, and points out that the vice-president of the Front National, Louis Aliot agrees. He laments the fact that Aliot's words were "deformed" by the media, giving the impression he did not care about the Christians.
Harkis were North Africans who fought for France in the Algerian War.
This is therefore my position, that I affirm and for which I assume responsibility, namely that France ought to be a part of the American airstrikes, to support the regular Shiite army and the Kurdish Pershmergas in their fight against the Islamic State.
Breaking the Caliphate and eliminating jihadists with French citizenship
There is an essential point in the destruction of the Caliphate: it has mutated from a regional to a world Caliphate. The Caliph proclaimed himself world Caliph and obtained the support of several radical imams influential in the world of Sunni Islam, including one in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. The risk of propagation is obvious and the Americans have understood this. We must, imperatively, crush under a rain of fire these madmen who mutilate women, selling them as slaves on the market of Mosul, satiating through them their criminal instincts and inundating the world with their macabre videos. Vladimir Putin had words, as brutal as they were sensible, about these Islamists that the Russians fought in Chechnya (while the American helped them), and who massacred dozens of children in Beslan. "We must shove the terrorists under a pile of shit." It wasn't very politically correct but it's the best policy when confronted with Islamism.
Note: He has gone much further than any member of the Front National that I know of in advocating justified violence against people who cannot be civilized.
And this policy must not stop there. We know that almost one thousand jihadists with French nationality have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq and that many of them have joined the Islamic Caliphate. We must not consider them as wayward but as enemies who will soon return to France, armed with their military experience, their minds freed from any limitation after the crimes they commit (rapes, torture, decapitation). We must eliminate them in situ and this should be the role of our special services immediately. We cannot run the risk of waiting for them to return. Arrested and imprisoned in France they will be powerful motors of conversion to Islam in the prisons, hence an additional factor in the propagation of Islamic fundamentalism in our country. It is the responsibility of every European nation to eliminate its jihadist nationals before they return.
Note: I will be adding the rest of the article in the days to come.
Above, Al-Qaeda fighters in the North African desert.
Below, the map shows the major areas of influence of al-Qaeda. France, in its entirety is included, as are most European countries with open borders that promoted the massive immigration of Muslims, guided by the dream of Eurabia, the spiritual vacuum left by the rejection of hated Christianity, and the delusion that an alliance with the Muslims would provide the "counterweight" to the overweening influence of the United States.
And now, we all end up in the same boat - fighting the jihadists whom we funded, housed, educated, medicated, absolved of heinous crimes, to whom we granted instantaneous citizenship, and the Legion of Honor, turning away from the truth about Fort Hood and Toulouse, and even groveling to the point of saying that 9/11 was the work of Mossad, or the CIA. So far they haven't blamed the Front National or the National Rifle Association, but maybe that will come...
Labels: Aymeric Chauprade, Foreign Policy, Islam, Military, Qatar, Resistance, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, United States