The Answer to Terror We Need Determination, Not Saber Rattling

The Paris terrorist attacks present a threat to Europe, but the martial rhetoric that has resulted is overwrought. Sobriety and determination should be our approach -- and forming a broad anti-IS alliance, even with uncomfortable partners.

An Editorial by

A makeshift memorial set up in front of the Parisian restaurant Le petit Cambodge, one of the sites in the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks.

A makeshift memorial set up in front of the Parisian restaurant Le petit Cambodge, one of the sites in the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks.

Fifty years ago, when the world first began considering the phenomenon that would come to be known as "globalization," it was seen one dimensionally. It had to do with economics, corporations, trade and jobs. Since then, we have learned that other problems, like climate change, cannot be solved if one country builds wind turbines while the other is constructing coal-fired power plants. And we are learning that refugees make no distinction between the industrialized world and the developing world. Today, they are networked and they take flight as soon as they believe salvation is waiting for them on another continent. It would be difficult to overstate this epochal shift, because what we are witnessing will be lasting, but it also may just be beginning.

It is a single world, economically, politically and in human terms, linked together by modern communication and, now, terrorism. The so-called Islamic State spills blood in Syria and Iraq, but it also seeks to cast its net around Paris and the rest of the world. It is establishing nation-like structures in its caliphate while at the same time building a parallel digital world.

War Rhetoric

What can the international community do to respond to this threat? And how should Germany act? Should its approach be hardline and aggressive, as demanded by Mathias Döpfner and Berthold Kohler, two of Germany's most powerful media voices? Or should it be sober and level-headed? We must first understand what exactly happened. Islamic State's terrorism is not directed explicitly at the West. It is directed against any kind of culture, against all that is mature, intelligent, sensual and free. Its ideology is based on the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, the same brutal and medieval school practiced by Saudi Arabia, a partner of the West.

A Prevailing Sense of Powerlessness

Islamic State's terror thrives in a vacuum. After autocratic systems like Egypt, or failed states like Iraq and Syria, allowed their economies to die, millions of young men were left behind, angry and powerless. And it's this sense of powerlessness that dominates in the Arab world today. Now the powerless want to get even with those in power.

The aim of the terror practiced by Islamic State is to surprise, to induce fear and to shock, all of which it does. But beyond Syria and Iraq, it is not war, and it certainly isn't World War III. It's still just terrorism. Islamic State is in no position to endanger the foundations of our nations. Nor can it present the kind of long-term threat posed to humanity by climate change. But it is a mastercraftsman of terror, which is threatening enough. Only once we have come to understand just who the opponent is, can we begin to act.

A sound democracy like Germany's can rely on the civil courage of its people, who believe in, and stand up for, freedom. In the face of a true threat, it can strengthen the police and intelligence services without curbing civil liberties. It can keep suspects under observation without resorting to mass surveillance of companies, media and individuals. It can cancel international football matches without loss of face, as in Hanover after the Paris attacks. It should control who enters the country. A sound democracy should enforce applicable law not least because it must be vigilant at a time when such a large number of people are anxious, even if the cause of this uncertainty has become blurred (it is here, the uncertainty of Europeans, where terror and refugee flight intersect. Otherwise, the latter is caused by the former).

Uncomfortable Allies

Should Europe also desire to stand strong and to follow up France's retaliatory air strikes with a real strategy, then it must do everything within its power to end the civil war in Syria. Doctrinal purity free of tarnish is no longer possible: As long as Russia and Iran continue to throw their support behind Bashar Assad -- and as long as we still need Russia's help in the fight against IS -- we will unfortunately have to accept that Assad will remain president for now. And we will have to accept that he will likely be granted a graceful exit from the political stage rather than landing before a court.

We need allies and choosing them is no longer a question of taste, but of tactics. Egyptian President Sisi may not be a champion of democracy, but he is fighting Islamic State. Turkish President Erdogan has both influence and worries, which makes him an ideal dialogue partner. The Iraqi government needs help and we need change in Iraq, because the exclusion of all Sunnis (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni) is also driving new fighters into the arms of IS.

It won't be possible without partners because Islamic State must be stripped of the funding, the theological foundations and the moral backing it receives from the Arab world. Only education and the promise of a future can defeat the Arab sense of powerlessness -- one which existed prior to Islamic State, in the times of Hezbollah and al-Qaida, and one which cannot be allowed to persist in the post-IS world. All of that requires level-headed decision-making and sober, decisive diplomacy. Not the rhetoric of war.

It will also require more careful consideration of an aspect that, at first glance, may seem marginal at the moment: Countries that have common problems need a functioning United Nations to help address them. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is precisely the kind of compromise candidate that we need to prevent in times like these. The UN Security Council remains as dysfunctional today as it was 20, even 60 years ago. Europe and Angela Merkel, whose name is often tossed in the ring as a possible future secretary general, have influence in New York. It's high time for it to be put to use.

There are eras -- World War II, for example, or today -- in which countries often at odds with each other still have common goals. At such a time, it is of course possible to forge a global alliance against Islamic State.

About the Author

Klaus Brinkbäumer is the editor in chief of DER SPIEGEL.

The author on Facebook

More articles by Klaus Brinkbäumer


Discuss this issue with other readers!
9 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
broremann 11/27/2015
1. war talk
World War 3 And now as the generation that remembers how bloody a world war is, and how many millions suffered and died, is forgotten a distant past and again the black winged Bird of war is flapping its wings. I will go to Papua New Guinea, buy a big piece of forest and plant more trees when needed, I will keep pigs that soon will be wild and invite people to kill them with a bow and arrow. I pig head on the wall and a trophy wife in the bed, idiots will pay a lot for that. By preserving the forest, I will help save the world from carbon emission, if it is not too late and the world cannot be saved from the colossus NATO and those with no memory who get excited by demagogues and are ready to make the wrong decision and eradicate them. I will also keep cassowary as pets, but not indoors as they do crap a lot, and like to sleep in your bed. I will sit here and wait till radio signals are silent and I know War is over, and the world far away is a smoking ruin Incinerated bibliotheca, obliterated literature and we shall not know about our short but illustrious time on earth.
JK Anand 11/27/2015
2. Syria, Paris, Refugees
Agree with your editorial. Rhetoric for WAR is fine, if you are going to win a war without losing anything. But, for our own sake, we should try for peace. Bombing will create more enemies, more refugees. Find the guilty, yes. And punish the guity, yes. But don't just look at somebody's face and shoot him dead without trial.
subo_168 11/27/2015
3. The usual double standard
What no mention of the fact that France is in a state of emergency for 3 months. If the US had imposed a state of emergency after 911, Der Spiegel journalists would have been ranting about how the US had became a FASCIST police state. (Always trying to bump off Europeans fascist history onto the USA ). What no mention of the fact that Hollande has declared France is at WAR with ISIS. No mention of France's own WAR on terrorism? When George Bush declared war on Al Qaeda after 911 , German journalists loudly criticized Bush's so called "cowboy" war drum beat against Al Qaeda. Strangely Hollande is not compared to a "cowboy" when he declares WAR on ISIS. As usual Germans will be blind to their hypocrisy and double standards. Don't give much hope for any soul searching about trying to understand Bush's rhetoric after 911 now that Europe knows what it feels like to be the number one target for terrorism.
Braqueish 11/28/2015
4. Talking Turkey
You say "Turkish President Erdogan has both influence and worries, which makes him an ideal dialogue partner". This could hardly be further from the truth. Erdoǧan, his family and their cronies are up to their necks in the financing, supply and training of ISIS. They are corrupt gangsters who fantasise about the restoration of Ottoman grandeur while destroying accountability, justicial freedom and democracy. It is beyond belief that NATO will allow this bully to drag them into a war with Russia, or that the EU would "fast track" this increasingly Islamicist nation into its midst.
afrikaneer 11/29/2015
5. Afrikaneer
THERE ARE SIGNS EVERYWHERE. Albert Einstein wrote (1952)-"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."-Mr. Brinkbaumer voice strikes me as the right balance between the destruction of ISIS and pointing out the root of the problem in the Muslim world. His call for rational decisions however, will be lost in the desert. Right now the West is bent destroying ISIS regardless. Three thoughts come to mind: First, assuming the West and Russia bomb ISIS out of Syria, ISIS may go underground and create mayhem anywhere in the West; this prospect should be stopped at any cost and should put the NSA and BND on notice. Both surveillance agencies have a $300 Billion yearly budget, and either one had not a hint on the Paris attacks, can taxpayers afford such laxity?- Second, The West owns the money sources feeding the engines of progress around the world, and Muslims have yet not access to these sources for the economic developments in their communities. As their population increased ten-fold their industrial output did not. Henceforth, narrowing their opportunities in education, personal independence, and commercial trade. One begs the questions, are there any other option the West should consider beside air raid bombs on dissatisfied young Muslins in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen?- For how long the bloodshed will continue before the West addresses the root of the problem?-Kofi Annan, UN Sec, stated" Extreme poverty anywhere is a threat to human security everywhere"-Third, It is time to consider that the territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq is a West-delusion. A partition of the region along sectarian lines may convince Sunnis to stop idling with ISIS. (NYT Opinion pages of 11-25-15 "To defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State").
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.