- Increased protective services, especially of Jewish and Muslim places of worship.
- Increased staffing of intelligence functions and a new legal framework for domestic intelligence operations.
- Increased investments to counter radicalization, especially in prisons, via the Internet and in the community.
- Increased measures to target and track specific individuals convicted or “accused” of terrorism.
- Increased efforts, in coordination with the European Union and its member states, to implement effective border controls for the Schengen area.
The summary of the ministerial briefing provided by the French embassy in Washington DC notes, “a file containing the names of all individuals convicted or accused of terrorist acts will be created. These individuals must provide proof of their address at regular intervals and provide notification of any change of address or trips abroad. Failure to comply with these provisions will constitute an offence.” Please note convicted or accused.
Also highlighted at the ministerial briefing — though not actually discussed in any detail — was a government report released on Monday: “Une école qui porte haut les valeurs de la République” (A school that promotes the values of the Republic).
This begins to suggest “soft power” tools the French government will attempt to strengthen to counter radicalization. The “School of the Republic” concept goes back to the 1789 Revolution and is especially associated with the Third Republic (1870-1940). The focus has always been on unifying France around core Republican values.
According to the report, included in the priorities for a school that “carries the banner” for the Republic are (my translation):
- First, secularism with new content related to moral and civic education, but also lay teaching about religions; with a massive effort of continuing education for teachers and operational support to teams in difficulty.
- Second, reducing educational inequalities: to strengthen the sense of belonging to the Republic by all students, this will require new measures in favor of diversity and social mobility.
- Finally, the mobilization of all national education partners, and primarily the parents of students: measures to develop school democracy, learning a culture of commitment…
Neither the process nor the principles articulated in the report are exportable to the United States. But it is interesting to see the explicit connection made between counter-terrorism — or more accurately, anti-terrorism — and public education.
Related — at least in my fevered brain — is the rather extraordinary dust-up emerging over the “summit” to be hosted by the White House on February 18. This is part of the ongoing Countering Violent Extremism effort by DHS, State, and “The Interagency”.
In the White House statement on the upcoming session (almost the only detail available so far), it is explained:
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) efforts rely heavily on well-informed and resilient local communities. Boston, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis-St. Paul have taken the lead in building pilot frameworks integrating a range of social service providers, including education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders, with law enforcement agencies to address violent extremism as part of the broader mandate of community safety and crime prevention. The summit will highlight best practices and emerging efforts from these communities. At the same time, our partners around the world are actively implementing programs to prevent violent extremism and foreign terrorist fighter recruitment. The summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community.
The too often contorted lingo — and bureaucratic behavior — around CVE has been a fair target from the beginning. It was not surprising when Victor Davis Hanson at the National Review took aim at the summit. Or when his NR colleague Rich Lowry did so in Politico’s magazine (I can’t quickly find an online link). But in yesterday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman piled on big time.
Some of the critiques are constructive. Failing to differentiate between nearer-term counter-terrorism and longer-term anti-terrorism is not constructive. Both are needed. Well-conceived, the measures of each are complementary. But in conception and practice they are two very different undertakings.