Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
"Until 1986, France had a “sanctuary doctrine,” essentially giving terrorists considerable freedom to operate within French borders in the hopes of minimizing international terrorism on French soil. France allowed various Palestinian groups to operate as well as the Basque separatist group ETA.
France also adjusted its foreign policy to win over state sponsors and their proxies. Some groups, such as the PLO, abided by the bargain and did not conduct attacks in France. Paris was also able to maintain relations with several state sponsors of terrorism.
France suffered several problems with this approach. Most important, several groups did not keep their side of the bargain and began not only attacking in France, but attacking French targets (as opposed to U.S. or Middle Eastern ones).
In addition, the accommodation with groups and sponsors created both diplomatic and political problems for Paris. Relations with victim countries, such as Spain, suffered considerably.
Moreover, domestic audiences in France did not support appeasement. After 1986, France slowly began to move to suppress terrorist groups, recognizing that its efforts to engage were a failure.
As the French experience suggests, engagement produces several problems. Naturally, the victim state and its allies are often furious at what they see as appeasement and use considerable diplomatic pressure to stop this.
Moreover, appeasement is unpopular politically." (Source: 'Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the Twenty-First Century' By James J Forest, P 749, 2007)
My question is why was France not affixed with the title 'State Sponsor of Terrorism'. After all, it hosted and in a sense legitimised organisations it officially deemed and accepted as 'terrorist'.
France also adjusted its foreign policy to win over state sponsors and their proxies. Some groups, such as the PLO, abided by the bargain and did not conduct attacks in France. Paris was also able to maintain relations with several state sponsors of terrorism.
France suffered several problems with this approach. Most important, several groups did not keep their side of the bargain and began not only attacking in France, but attacking French targets (as opposed to U.S. or Middle Eastern ones).
In addition, the accommodation with groups and sponsors created both diplomatic and political problems for Paris. Relations with victim countries, such as Spain, suffered considerably.
Moreover, domestic audiences in France did not support appeasement. After 1986, France slowly began to move to suppress terrorist groups, recognizing that its efforts to engage were a failure.
As the French experience suggests, engagement produces several problems. Naturally, the victim state and its allies are often furious at what they see as appeasement and use considerable diplomatic pressure to stop this.
Moreover, appeasement is unpopular politically." (Source: 'Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the Twenty-First Century' By James J Forest, P 749, 2007)
My question is why was France not affixed with the title 'State Sponsor of Terrorism'. After all, it hosted and in a sense legitimised organisations it officially deemed and accepted as 'terrorist'.