When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

UK police at recent England-France friendly soccer match
UK police at recent England-France friendly soccer match
Thomas Kielinger

LONDON — What's a politician most afraid of? British Premier Harold Macmillan's famous answer to the journalist's question is more relevant than ever: "Events, dear boy, events."

If you add the Paris death toll to the number of victims who died after ISIS bombed a Russian plane over the Sinai, that's 353. And the previous day's attack on Beirut takes the number to 400 civilians assassinated by ISIS.

How has the British government reacted? London was the victim of al-Qaeda a decade ago, when 52 people were killed in the attacks against public transport system. July 2005 was Britain's wakeup call. Ever since, security has remained a top priority, measured in the surveillance cameras on every other street corner, near public arenas, shopping malls, train stations. In terms of the state of security, the UK goes far beyond what would ever be authorized in France, or what the German public would ever accept.

Cameron hesitates

Prime Minister David Cameron's government is currently working on a new wiretap law, which is much more likely to pass in the wake of the Paris attacks.

An entirely different question is the one concerning military readiness. In 2003, when then-Prime Minister Tony Blair donned his "special relationship hat," he had no reservations about helping the United States in Iraq. Cameron, on the other hand, hesitates to ask for parliamentary approval to send the UK's eight Tornado aircraft to Syria.

In 2013, when Cameron asked the lower house for a mandate to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his people, lawmakers rejected the request. Another defeat would be fatal for him, so the man in Downing Street must first make sure to have an absolute majority on his side before undertaking anything.

A crucial letter

Perhaps the most unexpected consequence of the Paris attack across the Channel is over negotiations concerning the referendum to remain in the European Union, and the risk of the so-called Brexit. The climate appears to have reverse. The events in Paris underpin Cameron's intuition that, to play a role in the reformed EU, there actually is no alternative regarding security policy. After Nov. 13, the European priority is collaboration, support and security, more than ever.

President Hollande and I stood shoulder to shoulder outside the Bataclan Cafe in Paris. pic.twitter.com/prDbxIFy5u

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 23, 2015

As if anticipating the events in Paris, Cameron penned a letter to European Council President Donald Tusk last week, acknowledging "the benefit of a close collaboration on security issues." In a speech accompanying the letter, he called the EU "an important political instrument, similar to organizations such as NATO or the UN."

Britain's reform expectations towards the EU hadn't been forgotten, but the Brexit debate is now getting the international attention that it had been missing to date, thanks to the events in Paris.

In the light of much needed unity to face the terror, Europeans too will consider what Britain is really worth and how it fits into the EU. Maybe they will understand better now why the Island nation has always kept its distance from a Europe without frontiers, now that refugees are threatening the principles of the open-borden Schengen Area.

But if you think that the British want to retire to some sort of "splendid isolation," you're mistaken. The country knows a true variety of different cultures, with a much more global orientation than what can be seen in many parts of the Continent. It's something that Charles de Gaulle understood in 1963, when he refused Britain's application to become a member of the European Economic Community. He claimed that it "would never truly want to become a part of Europe."

But Britain has changed its position, and Cameron's point of view has clearly evolved since the days of de Gaulle. Nevertheless, we must not forget that Britain isn't interested in unity for the sake of unity, but for how it can benefit the country's own struggle to survive.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Ideas

Iran: A Direct Link Between Killing Protesters And The Routine Of State Executions

Iran has long had a simple and prolific response to political opposition and the worst criminal offenses, namely death by shooting or hanging. Whether opening fire on the streets or leading the world in carrying out the death penalty, the regime insists that morality is on its side.

Protesters linked to the Iranian group Mojahedin-e Khalq demonstrate in Whitehall, London in 2018

Ahmad Ra'fat

-Editorial-

In early September, before Iran's latest bout of anti-government protests sparked by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, there was another, quieter demonstration: Relatives of several prisoners sentenced to death staged a sit-in outside the judiciary headquarters in Tehran, urging the authorities to waive the sentences. The crowd, which doggedly refused to disperse, included the convicts' young children.

Executions have been a part and parcel of the Islamic Republic of Iran since its inception in 1979. The new authorities began shooting cadres of the fallen monarchy with unseemly zeal, usually after a summary trial. On Feb. 14, 1979, barely three days after the regime was installed, the first four of the Shah's generals were shot inside a secondary school in Tehran.

To this day, the regime continues to opt for death by firing squad for its political opponents; the execution method-of-choice for more socio-economic blights like drug trafficking has been death by hanging.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ