Thread by @diplocharlie

I understand @ishaantharoor may not have chosen the title and that presenting this as a clash of two leaders’ ego is catchy. But this is missing major issues, at least four of them :

https://twitter.com/ishaantharoor/status/1321056905213759495

1/ How it started: there is a constant disregard in reports for the fact that FR-TUR tensions started and continue in Northeastern #Syria because Ankara’s milit interventions disturbed the fight c/ #ISIS. Why is it important ?

Because the US was the main player on the ground and the failure to find an understanding with TUR led to the escalation we saw in October 2019 when TUR intervened and the US withdrew without consulting its European allies.

At the time, France made proposals to address both TUR security concerns re #PKK and European security priorities re #ISIS. Ankara refused, as it refused what Washington proposed. The problem isn’t so much the disagreement as the refusal to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Remember the « NATO is brain dead » comment ? It was exactly about the inability of the US, Turkey and NATO in general to deal with the Northeastern problem. At that time allied buried their head in the sand. Why is it still relevant today? economist.com/europe/2019/11…

Because, some of the armed groups TUR is using in Northern Syria are borderline Jihadis and the main Jihadi one #HTS has influenced the killer of Samuel Paty. And today these groups are burning French flags while waving the ISIS one.

https://twitter.com/mutludc/status/1320367641148772353

So I find the tendancy to report about FR-TUR tensions as an isolated problem between two annoying allies deeply unhelpful. These tensions have real security implications for everyone & Washington is part of this discussion since the beginning. #S400 #EastMed #Libya #Karabakh

2/ Obviously there are domestic politics here. But it doesn’t mean an equivalence in the policies Macron & Erdogan design. It is questionable to compare a balanced reform of the French secular framework to TUR multiple foreign military interventions & crushing of any opposition.

Macron’s speech on Islam in France and the speech in honour of Samuel Paty were purely domestic matters. But Erdogan turned them into an international controversy for geopolitical gain. Nobody asked anything to Erdogan with regards to Samuel Paty, he made it a FR-TUR issue.

3/ Presenting this as a clash of leaders’ ego is problematic because it serves the TUR PR strategy to make this about Macron personally while ignoring all the issues at stake. Compare TUR and FR statements and you will see who needs the fight.

https://twitter.com/diplocharlie/status/1304516943748173832

4/ On the situation of French citizens of Muslim faith, @ishaantharoor quotes @jameskmcauley’s recent article but as I told James :

https://twitter.com/diplocharlie/status/1320421778343251969?s=21

https://twitter.com/diplocharlie/status/1320421778343251969

And presenting the laïcité framework as an attempt to « change religious practices » is misleading. The laïcité is about keeping a dialog with religious orga about security & health issues without intervening in religious matters.

The notion that France is cracking down on its 5M citizen of Muslim faith after the killing of Paty is simply not true. @john_lichfield said it better than I can.

https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1320616354085523456?s=12

A number of French Muslim organisations like the @CfcmOfficiel expressed themselves very clearly on this. There is a democratic debate in France about the Government’s policy. Support & opposition to it are expressed and that’s the way it should be before a Parliamentary debate.

I tried to summarise what was at stake for French society here & there is obviously a lot to unpack. But shaky equivalence based on an over personalisation of the issue isn’t going to help. washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysi…