 Bonjour à tous, mon nom est Justin Weiss, je suis le directeur du Centre d'analyse de prévisions et de stratégie du Gué d'Orsay et on m'a demandé de modérer cette session sur le terrorisme. Hier, lors de son discours, le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Jean-Marc Héro, a évoqué le terrorisme, il a parlé d'une menace globale, d'un terrorisme qui s'y joue des frontières et impose une guerre nouvelle qui frappe nos Etats et nos sociétés en leur cœur, en combinant l'idéologie la plus rétrograde et les méthodes les plus barbares, aux technologies les plus modernes. Ensuite, il a rappelé que la France avait été frappée la dernière fois le 14 juillet, le jour de la Fête nationale, et il a aussi rappelé les lands de solidarité qui avaient entouré, disons, les réactions à cet attentat. Et il avait ajouté, je le cite, car la France n'est bien sûr pas la seule à être frappée. Le terrorisme a touché New York, Boston, San Bernardino ou Orlando. Il a fait des ravages à Paris, Nice, Bruxelles, mais aussi à Istanbul, Kabul, Baghdad, Dhaka, Sirt, Tunis, Bamako, Niyame, Tel Aviv, Ouagadougou, Bombay ou Abidjan. Cette liste macabre n'est pas exhaustive, même si elle est déjà longue, beaucoup trop longue. Nous en connaissons tout le paradoxe, la majorité des victimes de ces terroristes qui se revendiquent de l'Islam sont des musulmans. Et il concluait cet aspect-là, cet aspect sur le terrorisme en disant, face aux désordres du monde, la seule réponse consiste à unir nos forces, à faire preuve de solidarité et à trouver des solutions collectives à des problèmes communs. J'ai souhaité mentionner ce discours de Jean-Marc Héro hier parce qu'au fond il ouvre la scène, il nous donne une idée du panel qui nous attend et qui répond précisément à cette idée d'unir nos forces collectivement pour résoudre un problème commun. La diversité des membres de ce panel répond en effet à cette exigence et je mentionnerai brièvement qui sont les intervenants. Vous avez leur biographie dans les livrets. Je vous demanderai d'abord à Sergei Karaganov, qui est, je le dirais en anglais, le Honorary Chairman of the Non-governmental Council on Foreign and Defence Policy of Russia. Et un habitué, j'ajouterais de la World Policy Conference, de commencer. Ensuite, M. Naranayan, qui est ancien gouverneur du Bengale Occidental, en Inde, mais aussi conseillé de sécurité du Premier ministre, poursuivra. Alors, on a un petit contretemps avec notre collègue Jamal Kashoghi, de Al Arab News Channel, qui, je l'espère, va nous rejoindre dans quelques minutes. Il sera suivi par M. Wang Jiejeu, qui est le président de l'Institut d'études internationales et stratégiques à l'université de Pékin, et professeur dans cette université. Et nous terminerons, ça n'est pas tout à fait l'ordre qui est indiqué dans le programme, par l'intervention de M. J. Angir Khan, qui est le directeur du UN Content-Terrorism Implementation Task Force et du UN Content-Terrorism Centre, et qui nous apportera, qui nous expliquera quelle est la vision des Nations unies, et en particulier les plans développés par le secrétaire général, qui est chargé de mettre en oeuvre. Nous irons donc en quelque sorte du plus général et du plus philosophique, dirais-je, ou du plus analytique, vers ce qui constitue la vision actuelle de ce problème-là, du problème du terrorisme, par les Nations unies. Donc, sans attendre davantage, je laisse la parole à Sergei Karaganov pour les 8 minutes réglementaires. Sergei. Merci, Monsieur le Président. Well, first of all, I'm delighted to be here, and I'm very happy that the World Policy Conference lives in thrice on terrorism. We're basically in the modern world, two types of terrorism. One is, I mean, a terrorism which has mentioned, I mean terrorist attacks, which are vicious, which are growing, which are growing the dangers, and which are happening all over the world, especially of course in the larger Middle East, but also now more and more Europe, that have been often in Russia and other places. And a second type, I would say, terrorism is organized or massive terrorism, when terrorist organizations which provide, I mean, a first type of terrorism take over territories and countries and become then the threat, the direct threat of humanity. We have had that kind of terrorism even before, that rarely, I mean, because of injustice and economic suffering, Germany has become a terrorist state. I mean, before that and after that, we have had a racist and nationalist regimes in Europe, but Hitler regime was quite something different. It was a classic terrorist regime. It didn't use that modern terrorist tactics, but it was a classic terrorist regime. So, how to deal with the first type of terrorism is clear, though it is very difficult. It is work of security services, police and maximum coordination. How to deal with the second type of terrorism is a big issue, but before addressing that second issue, I must say that, I mean, on this concrete situation we have, of course, a clear case of this new kind of terrorism, not so no new kind, which again appeared about 30 years ago. It was first Mojahedin and Taliban, then al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, now Daesh. And it is highly likely that it will have something else, unless we learn the lessons from the past. The reasons for arrival of this new type of terrorism, as well as the first type of terrorism, are relatively clear. Un justice social inequality in this particular area of the world. It is also, of course, a growth of demographic problem, I mean, on the background of economy lagging, cultural problems, climat change, decreases production of food in this area, creating, I mean, new masses of unsatisfied people who go to the streets. So this is there, you should deal with these kind of sources of terrorism, but they will be out with us and you could not deal with them, do away with them totally. But this time, and as well as in the previous times, like al-Qaeda and Taliban before, these huge terrorist organizations which actually took over territories were also the result of unjustified, I would say incototally incompetent and irresponsible intrusion by foreign powers. Soviet Union, my former country did contribute when it went into Afghanistan, but thanks God we have done away with the IDC of communism and its gerentocracy. But now we have had during the last several years, I mean, a new kind of series of ideological intrusions which are, as I have said, unbelievably responsible and incomprehensible. Of course, Iraq, which actually created and then which ended up in throwing away the cadres of Baath regime. We had Libya, we had support of Arab Spring, which could have only brought disaster, but of course, was widely supported and thrived for a while. And now we have, of course, the same situation in Syria developing. So, my first recipe for dealing with this issue is stop interventions. And the whatever ideological banner they come whether it's communism, democratism, or future isms to come to this world, they bring only disaster. Respect the local traditions and customs. The aim should not be changed but stability only change and development could come only under circumstances of stability and peace. That is the lesson we should learn from the past but where from to the future. Well, Russia is doing what it believes it should do and also for the future. We have went to Syria for several reasons but one of the reasons is to destroy terrorist organizations and terrorist institutions at their core rather than before they come to our territory. And prop up existing states and existing legitimate governments and stop the irresponsible policies of regime changes which have been performed by our partners. We are succeeded. If you wish, I will later, if you wish, do you have a few moments? So, what should be the principles? About future policy? Well, first of all, as I've said, common goals, stability. When fighting terrorist organizations of the Daesh type or Nusra type which is thought to be first, not exactly a terrorist, you have to use unlimited force. The aim is to kill and to crush the will of those people and ideology of those people who have taken up arms against forces of civilization. If you play with these forces, you are doomed to be defeated eventually by them. Then, emphasize, put emphasis on support of traditional forces and traditional values within the societies. Work with the governments. And of course, forget about the geopolitical games when you are fighting this kind of terrorist threats. It's very hard for everybody, including Russians. We are very good in playing geopolitical games. But in principle, we must understand that if we do not defeat Daesh now, there will be several Daeshes which might be much worse down the road because their social, economic and political preconditions for new waves of terrorism are growing. The situation in the middle, in the larger Middle East, has been destabilized for quite some time. And it will be very hard. We could discuss that later to correct it if it is possible at all. But then we have Central Africa which is going towards a social disaster again mostly because of climate, demography, etc. And it will be a fertile ground for terrorism. And the final word on that is support existing states which are vulnerable. In this area, I could name only three but there are many others. And I think that our friends from this area know that better. I would say that there are three on the top of my list. This is Jordan, of course. Egypte and Algeria. If we do not support them together with our friends from this area but also people from Europe, from Russia, from maybe from China, other places, I mean we will have a profound and quantitative threat. I mean just imagine what would have happened if Russia would not have started to destroy all these forces in Syria. By now, Al Nusra and Daesh would have controlled the whole country, would have been in Damascus. And controlling, I mean the military machine of the government. Imagine what would have happened if almost by the will of Allah or God General Alsisi wouldn't have organized a coup d'état. By this time, the whole Egypte would have been in flames. So, thank you. Thank you, Sergei. I think we'll have a lot of substance to discuss but Mr Naranayan, the floor is yours. Oh, you want to go to the podium? First, I would like to thank on their theory and the World Policy Conference for inviting me and giving me an opportunity to take part in this very, very interesting conference. I think this is the fourth occasion that I've been here and each time it has been a learning experience. Thank you also Justin for putting me at the number two on the panel before other more distinguished speakers have their say in the matter. I've begun by saying that to win a war you need to know your enemy. And I think ancient philosophers, strategists like Sunzi or Kautilya have said this but it's true every time that you have to deal with terrorists Sergei said just now terrorists are creating problems which are multi-dimensional in nature and we need to understand that. So, much of what I'm going to say today is that fighting terrorism requires an understanding of the way terrorism has morphed over the years for instance. History is both relevant and important in this context but do realise and understand that while terrorism is not a post-modern phenomenon the paradigmatic changes that have taken place in the practice of violence has meant that there are profound strategic implications in the ways terrorism is employed today. Let me try to outline the stages one by one. First, I would ask you to throw your mind back to the 80s of the last century. This was when the broad sweep of radical Islamist extremism today received its first impetus. The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s was a major turning point reflecting as it did a mixture of religious fervour with fundamentalist aims. The Afghan jihad attracted volunteers from across the Islamic world and helped initiate what in subsequent years became a crucial mass of collective jihadist effort based on a combination of experiences across Egypte, Syria, the Arab world and West Asia overall. This marked the beginning or the opening of global jihad. Next we come to new era terrorism which in a sense began with the September 11 terror attacks September 11 2001 terror attacks in the United States were finished by a series of attacks thereafter including the one we had in Mumbai in November 2008. Both signified the emergence of a different kind of threat one of achieving mass casualties and large scale economic and political disruption rather than drawing attention to a primary cause or primary causes. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden became the symbols of this new genus of terrorism. Between 2001 and 2011 the Al Qaeda corps and its regional affiliates were responsible for several large scale terrorist attacks in different regions of the globe. Third, as the Al Qaeda corps started to weaken following the elimination of Osama bin Laden internal tensions in the Al Qaeda corps emerged and this led to the emergence of what we now call the Islamic state phenomenon. The theology of the Islamic state was not very different from that of the Al Qaeda both being influenced by the nihilistic teachings of the Egyptian Syed Khutub and the Palestinian Abdullah Azam but the ISIS combined this with the practical theology of the Afghan warlord Jalaluddin Haqani. I would say that the real fundamental difference between ISIS and earlier versions of terrorism is the fact that they paraded an exclusivist brand of puritanical Islam. The idea of a new caliphate themes such as Hijrah and Bayan overall gave a complete new dimension to what they meant by modern Islamic ideas. This has proved to be a very powerful magnet in attracting Muslim youth from across the world. I would urge this audience to understand and recognize the fact that the Islamic state is a unique entity. It is very different from other terrorist organizations it believes in holding territory. It in effect projects an Islamic state prototype. Its recruitment techniques, the employment of dark propaganda in its videos for purposes of recruitment and propaganda is proselytization methods over the internet all have created a virtual community of fanatical sympathizers. I do not think that the world has ever seen self-radicalization on this scale and I think there are no markers to indicate how and where this would end or where this would lead in the world too. Violence is a late motive of the ISIS beginning with the highly publicized campaigns of beheading civilian hostages. It has carried out some of the most spectacular killings Sergei a made some reference to this just now. I do not think that I should repeat the horrors of 2015 and 2016 too recent in our memories. What has happened is that the success of the ISIS is in turn leading to a resurgence of other terrorist organizations. The Al Qaeda for instance which was in decline is showing signs of revival. The ISIS and Al Qaeda are now establishing contact with a host of other terrorist outfits and formations across Asia and Africa and perhaps Europe as well. I believe that Al Qaeda is even thinking or considering declaring an Islamic Emirate to counter the ISIS caliphate. In conclusion I think we need to acknowledge that terrorism is becoming more asymmetric even as newer terrorist groups emerge. Both the ostentatious brutality of the ISIS and the relatively softer jihadism of the Al Qaeda pose not merely long order threats but also a kind of civilization tsunami considering the way we run our affairs. Countering the enduring myth of the ISIS namely that of a Puritan Islamist entity is not going to be easy. The threat that the ISIS posits is that it is not just an organization. It is an idea. I think we need to understand this. When the ISIS encounters setbacks it will morph into ISIS 2.0 and continue the stage for attacks. If the ISIS is defeated in Syria the conditions that created the ISIS will not just disappear. A generation of disaffected youth willing to wage other future struggles already exists. They will stream out of their present habitat in Asia and Africa to other regions including Europe and the United States. The lone wolf syndrome will become a very persistent threat and danger. We realize that the internet will become a crucial weapon in the hands of the ISIS once it morphs into ISIS 2.0. Already the ISIS has plans to use the deep web and the dark net. The latter would in ISIS 2.0 become a vicious instrument in the hands of the ISIS to engage in cyber terrorism. Finalement, je voudrais dire que le terrorisme sera la preuve de ne pas seulement le présent, mais aussi les générations futures. Les groupes de terrorisme dans le futur, comme le cas de l'ISIS, sont probablement d'augmenter leur brutalité comme l'adaptation évolutionnelle de l'environnement d'un environnement dangereux. Consequent, l'appel des idées pernicious comme les ISIS sera le plus grand challenge de l'humanité. Comment un combat ou une guerre efficace contre les philosophies ou les philosophies dangereuses de l'ISIS? Pas d'utiliser les drones et pas seulement par violence. La guerre doit être battue avec les idées. Nous avons besoin d'une meilleure idée, d'une meilleure idée. Ce n'est pas le cas à présent. Ladies et gentlemen, ce n'est pas une guerre de 30 ans ou une guerre d'une nouvelle génération. Le conflit sera un long tournoi et nous et le monde devons préparer un long tournoi. Merci. Merci. Généralement, quand nous voulons être pessimistes et poursuivre l'attention d'une guerre de 30 ans d'une guerre d'une nouvelle génération d'une nouvelle génération d'une guerre d'une nouvelle génération de la guerre d'une nouvelle génération d'une nouvelle génération D'accord, je dois furniturement non plus, alors comment Tolot nous pufferons d'avoir un compte timide seafood de la guerre d'une telle grande l'approche c'est de combattre le terrorisme. La première, qui a été annoncée pendant 20 ans ou 25 ans, c'est l'endroit où vous commencez à couvrir de 9h11 ou de 9h90, par la première attaque par l'administration de Clinton en Janel Abad ou en Soudan, par le bombardement des targets al-Qaida. Si l'approche de l'affaire a été donné les résultats, c'était suffisant, on n'aurait pas eu plus de terrorisme aujourd'hui. Donc c'est un indiqué qu'il n'est pas allé bien. L'approche est faite. Et pour cela, nous avons plus d'terroristes. Ce n'est que pour la première fois, le terrorisme a transformé l'organisation dans le pays. Le terrain de l'affaire, les territoires de l'affaire. Donc ceci ne marche pas. Nous devons admettre cela. Qu'est-ce que l'autre approche que je dirais, qui je pense est plus approprié. C'est plus compliqué. C'est très compréhensible. Je peux le dire, fixer l'approche de l'arabe. Nous devons aller pour la cause de la cause du problème. La cause de la cause du problème est l'anarchie. Oui, c'est vrai que l'anarchie a été prédée dans le Syrie, l'Iraq et l'Alibie dans la forme de Al-Qaida. Mais encore une fois, il y avait une forme de l'anarchie en Afghanistan. Que le monde, après la Russian, la soviève, qui s'est annoncée en Afghanistan, s'est annoncée en Afghanistan et s'est annoncée en Kias. L'anarchie et l'anarchie qui existait en Afghanistan depuis 1992, 2001, a donné un événement pour l'Al-Qaida et l'terrorisme. Donc l'anarchie était là en Afghanistan. Le monde pouvait faire quelque chose. Ils pouvaient fixer l'Afghanistan. Mais personne n'était pas intéressé par le nom de l'Afghanistan. Je me souviens de l'anarchie de l'Ahmad Shama Saud, qui était le plus grand musulman, un jihadiste musulman, dans le bon sens du monde, qui a vécu au monde, qui a vécu à l'Europe, quelques mois avant 9-11, il a été annoncé. Il a été annoncé. L'anarchie a été annoncée. En ce moment, deux jours avant 9-11, l'anarchie d'Ahmad Shama Saud a été assassinée. On le sait. Donc fixer l'anarchie, fixer le monde arabe, c'est la solution. Mais je vais retourner à l'approche de la courante. L'approche de la courante, ce que nous avons maintenant, c'est d'aller à l'Al-Qaida, à l'ISIS, à l'assassiner, à utiliser les drones. Par exemple, ce que nous avons fait en Syrie pour l'année dernière. Ils ne l'aimaient pas. Il y avait beaucoup de landes à l'ISIS. Il y avait plus de landes à l'ISIS, à l'ISIS, dans les mains des Syriens qui étaient soutenus par la Turquie, ou les Kurdes qui étaient soutenus par les Américains, puis des territoires qui étaient libérés par les Russes. En fait, les Russes, c'est terrible. Donc, il doit y avoir quelque chose d'accord. C'est les gens qui ont la motive de freiner eux-mêmes sur l'ISIS, pas les Russes, pas les Américains, pas les Syriens, pas les États-Unis, pas les États-Unis, les Syriens, les Arabes, ils sont ceux qui demandent d'être libérés par l'ISIS. L'ISIS n'est pas le futur de l'ISIS. Le futur de l'ISIS c'est ce qu'on a vu dans l'Égypte et l'Égypte en 2011. Il n'y avait pas de signes de l'ISIS, pas de signes de l'ISIS, pas d'une picture de l'ISIS. Les gens voulaient une démocratie dans le sens de l'ISIS. C'est ce que les gens regardent. Mais parce que nous n'avons pas supporté les gens à cette junction de l'histoire, le chaos et l'anarchie sont réveillés dans certaines zones de l'ISIS. Donc, l'ISIS et l'ISIS, ont été l'alternative. Cette approche nous rend des leaders de la guerre et des strategistes qui perdent la vision stratégique. Quand ils sont dans le milieu de cette approche, ils perdent des valeurs ethiques. Ils commencent à dire qu'on va choisir Bouchard avant que nous comptons l'ISIS. Bouchard avant l'ISIS. Or, l'ISIS avant Bouchard. C'est ce que j'ai correcté. C'est ce que j'ai fait wrong. Parce que, par exemple, l'attirant est partie du problème. C'est ce que nous avons l'ISIS. C'est ce que ses actions, ses mauvaises administrations, ses défaises, ses injustices, ce qui lead à la chaos en Syrie ou la chaos en Irak ou la chaos en Libye. Et le résultat était l'ISIS. Donc, cette approche distorte notre vision et fait que beaucoup de leaders ont dit le même chose. l'ISIS d'abord, puis Bouchard. Maintenant, il y a de plus d'acceptations de Bouchard et de plus d'insistir sur l'ISIS. En fait, personne n'est à l'ISIS maintenant en Syrie d'excepter les gens de la Syrie. Cette approche lead à plus de chaos. Et c'est exactement ce qu'il pourrait y avoir plus en Irak. En Irak, pour nous de perdre la vision stratégique, nous n'avons pas vu ce que l'Iran fait dans la région. L'Iran d'expansion, l'Iran de hajavani dans la région. Ce n'a pas été vu. Parce que cette approche discrète, nous n'avons pas vu les groupes radicaux qui sont aussi mauvais que l'ISIS. Tout est différent entre eux que les groupes radicaux qui sont aussi malade comme violents. Ils n'ont pas des vis-à-vis. Lorsque les radicaux radicaux sont radicaux, ils se font un threat. Lorsque les radicaux radicaux qui sont en Syrie, qui sont en Irak, qui exercent leur hajavani, qui font plus de chaos et plus de disturbances dans les régions. Ce n'est pas vu. C'est un attaque de l'initiative de comment cette vision nous a perdu dans la planète stratégique. Donc ce que on doit aller pour l'approche de Fixer l'Arc. Le plan de l'Arc est une approche qui inclure l'arc Mais en même temps, vous devriez avoir un plan de fixation du monde arabe complètement, pour remettre ça de la tyrannie, de l'injustice, de l'impérance, de les économies d'accès. Et si nous faisons ça, le cycle va continuer. Je me souviens, l'attaque d'attaque très stupide n'a pas été faite dans les années 90, c'est 30 ans plus tard. Donc c'est déjà 30 ans plus tard. Donc nous devons changer de course et adapter un cours plus compréhensible pour fixer le problème de l'attaque. Je vais juste finir maintenant avec que tout le monde a ses ices. Pourquoi j'ai mis tant d'infos sur le chaos et l'anarchie ? Oui, nous avons un très bon, brutal, agréable forme d'extrimentation. Mais dans toute la société, il y a un élément de nos groupes, qui ont l'air d'utiliser des violences contre le système. Mais en Europe ou en Montagnes ou en France, ils sont petits dans les numéros. Mais si Dieu forbid, dans les pays qui appuient à la stabilité et à l'ordre, si l'anarchie, pour une raison, est réveillée en quelque partie de France, ces radicaux seront émergés. C'est pourquoi nos radicaux sont émergés dans notre région. Ce n'est pas parce que nous, les Arabes, sont radicaux en s'entraînant, c'est juste parce que le système a déclenché. Donc nous devons recruter le système. Recruter le système n'est pas pour s'assurer que le système, comme le Bâchard, comme le Gaddafi de Libye, qui est en train d'accepter la picture, mais encore une fois, nous nous soutenons des petits tyrants en Libye ou au Sénat de l'Arabie. Ce n'est pas la solution, c'est le problème. Et les Arabes, les leaders. Merci beaucoup. Merci. Nous allons continuer. Le professeur Wong Chie-Shuh, je pense que l'Anti-Terrorisme a pris un endroit plus haut dans l'agenda domestique de la Chine. Il occupe un endroit plus haut dans la liste de priorités. Et l'année dernière, je pense que c'était en novembre 2015, le Congrés de la Chine a passé la loi de l'Anti-Terrorisme. Il définit l'Anti-Terrorisme. Il a beaucoup de mesures et beaucoup d'expressifs principaux. Mais il n'y a pas beaucoup d'informations publiques sur les attaques terroristes dans les activités de la Chine. Il n'y a pas beaucoup de coverage sur les activités terroristes pour des raisons politiques. Donc, ma information est basée sur des histoires anecdotes que j'ai prises par mes amis qui ont fait de la recherche dans cette région ou des cas isolés. Je l'ai appris pour une chose qui n'est pas publiquement discutée et disponible. On a trouvé que des terroristes suspectifs dans les dernières années ont vécu de Xinjiang à la province sud-ouest en Chine qui s'appelle Yunnan. Ils ont réussi de rester là pour quelques jours. Ils ont des connections et ils s'estiment de Yunnan à part de Thaïland. Et puis, de Thaïland, ils ont trouvé de la route à la sud-ouest. Et certains de eux, ou beaucoup d'entre eux, ont été membres d'Al-Qaeda ou d'Al-Daish. On a demandé à l'abri, qu'ils allaient dans son camp, et on a entendu des questions qui se sont enquête. On a de la antique et on aieurs des questions 테quées. Je pense qu'il faut qu'ils soient ! C'est un lieu et leurs représentatives, including Politburo member of the Communist Party Central Committee to neighboring countries, to some countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, to talk about security in those countries in China and the cooperation between China and those countries in fighting terrorism. Still, we don't know very much about what is really going on. I think the Chinese government is very careful not to speak, to invite trouble. And that's why in our central television reports every night, when there are terrorist attacks, we don't name those organizations like ISIS or other local organizations. We simply call them extremist groups or extremist organizations without specifying their identity. We have the translation of Al Qaeda but don't have the right translation for other organizations. That is very carefully done. So what China does in fighting terrorism? First, we give humanitarian aid to refugees and those victims of terrorist attacks, including our support to humanitarian activities in bordering Jordan and elsewhere. But it is beyond China's capacity to join military operations. We are neither joining the United States nor Russia in their military operations in Syria. Of course, there are some quiet discussions among some people. I know that in the future China may need to send military forces to rescue its own people or safeguard its companies or citizens abroad in those hotspots. But so far, there are no military actions or they are still in the period of discussing establishing some kind of rapid deployment force or something like that. And China's principle is very clear. That is we support legitimate governments of all these countries. And China doesn't really want to have more Arab springs or any movements aimed at undermining legitimate governments in this country or that country. As China's special envoy to the Middle East, Ambassador Gong Xiaosheng said yesterday, China wanted to be nice to everybody, to every government in the region. China does not really want to take side. And nowadays, we are talking about one belt, one road. And the foreign ministry, rather than other ministries, is taking charge of coordinating different government agencies in China to protect Chinese citizens and companies abroad. And to the best of my knowledge, there are also private-owned security companies established in China. There are many, quite a few that are operating. But I think we are more concerned about our neighboring countries. We sometimes mention Pakistan and Afghanistan and Central Asian states as something we should be more concerned about. Because the one belt, one road, a great part of it is called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. And the corridor passed from Xinjiang to the Indian-Pakistan-occupied Kashmir region. All the way from Kashmir to Pakistan to Guadalport and to the Middle East. And that is a very important route for China to be concerned about. And China also wants to keep some good balance between India and Pakistan and discuss about who should be identified as terrorist organizations and so on. So when I visited India, they made some quiet protest against some Chinese positions. But then, of course, Pakistan is a very, very good friend of China and we want really to maintain this relationship. At the same time, we understand the sensitivities on the part of India and some other neighboring countries. And that is what I really want to share with you today. Thank you. Thank you. We'll end this first round of interventions with Jean-Gui Rekhan, who will tell us what the vision, not only the view, but also the vision from the UN is. Thank you very much. I feel honored to speak after such a distinguished panel of experts. And speaking on behalf of the United Nations, I would like to, first of all, convey the very warm greetings of His Excellency, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, who in fact has participated in this forum in the past. And so it's an honor for the United Nations to be able to participate and to speak today on this very important subject. In doing so, I'd like to thank the government of the state of Qatar for their very warm hospitality. It provides a lot of support to our United Nations Counterterrorism Center. In fact, it has just announced a very generous contribution to our center. It reflects the leadership of Qatar in fighting terrorism. And I also want to thank the sponsors of this forum, in particular the French Institute of International Relations for inviting us. Distinguished friends and colleagues, why are we speaking about terrorism today? Let me first start with the preface that the reason why we are concerned for terrorism is because it has a human face. And what is that human face? It is the face of the victim, who too often is forgotten in the wide intellectual policy debates that take place around the world. If we reflect today that, in fact, this very day, there have been terrorist attacks in Mali in which people have been killed, in Afghanistan in which people have been killed. And even over the past week in my own country, in Pakistan, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, there was a huge attack. Almost every single day, individuals, men, women, and especially children are being killed. If you look at what is happening in Syria, in Aleppo, or in Iraq, in Mosul. So we have a duty and a responsibility, not just to talk about terrorism, not to just hypothesize, but the time has come for action. Not only action, the time has come for a call to unity and action. Now there is a lot of rhetoric about terrorism and a manipulation of terrorism for many different reasons for which I will not go to here. But I wish to submit a number of propositions to you as friends who are concerned about terrorism. First of all, not only does terrorism have a human face, it is also a phenomenon in which the primary victims of terrorism are Muslims today. And the primary forces who are fighting against terrorism are indeed here in the Muslim world, here in the state of Qatar and around the world, as I said earlier. And so we are all in it together and at the United Nations there is one principle that we believe in that the Secretary General of the United Nations is underlined. That terrorism and violent extremism has no religion, has no faith, has no ethnicity, has no culture. It is a pure evil in itself and every society throughout history has experienced extremism and terrorism. So let us not malign any particular religion or any particular region of the world. That is why I am saying and if we reflect today what is the quality and nature of terrorism and I hate to use this word quality it is an evolving phenomenon, a dynamic phenomenon it is becoming at the epicentre of conflicts. In fact we see today a vicious vortex developing between protracted conflicts, the exploitation of those conflicts by terrorist groups and the further proliferation of violent extremism around the world. Here is a very damning statistic. Today there are foreign terrorist fighters more than 30,000 of them coming from more than 100 countries. That tells us that terrorism is not located in one region. That terrorism is a global phenomenon and we are and we have to be looking at this and take a global approach to this spreading global disease. And if we are to address this vicious vortex between as I said protracted conflicts if you look at what is happening in Syria or you look in Iraq or in Libya or in Somalia in Afghanistan the conflict has been going on for more than 30 years. Distinguished friends let us ask ourselves are we in a better place since 911 or in a worse place? I think you know the answer to that when you see military operations pitch battles going on in two of the cities of Syria and Iraq. In fact the second largest city of Syria which is Aleppo and the second largest city of Iraq which is Mosul. Cities that are of millions of people and which thousands of innocent civilians children women and men are dying. And so the answer if I may say so to the question of are we better off than 911 or worse off to which I believe you have the answer is the question is what do we do about it? If you look at the response of the international community since 911 that response has been centred on one word and that word is counter counterterrorism counter extremism counter radicalisation and I submit to you distinguished friends that the word counter has been a response we are reacting whilst the terrorists have the initiative and that reaction has been mostly a military security response and that clearly has its limits and so the Secretary General of the United Nations Mr. Ban Ki-moon has worked over the last year and mobilise the whole United Nations system to present a new approach and that approach is centred on one word and it's in the antidote to the counter approach it is the word prevention now that's common sense that's common sense that we should be taking a preventive approach but the time has come to mainstream the prevention approach not to make it a lip service but to take action on it and so the Secretary General of the United Nations presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations a few months ago a United Nations global plan of action to prevent violent extremism what we call PVE and why is that the continuous ideologies as those perpetrated by ISIS, Boko Haram Al-Shabaab and many other groups are fueling terrorism and so the time has come for us to really look upstream at the drivers of violent extremism as Mr. Khashoggi just pointed out to us the word root causes and here the Secretary General has underlined the importance of a number of strategic priorities first of all we need to look at our youth today the world has 1.8 billion youth it is the largest population of young people in the history of mankind the 16 to 24 year old demographic is the primary prey of terrorist groups such as Daesh and we must look at how do we engage with youth not as a negative but as a positive because I submit to you that most young people are not ticking time bombs they aspire for the very same things that all young people have aspired for which is to pursue a dream a dream to change the world and we must respond to the crying call of young people today because today they have a new Molotov cocktail which is carried in this the social media between the aspirations of youth and social media they have the means to change the world and that is why Daesh is ahead of us in targeting young people and maligning them and mobilizing them to create disorder in the world as one of my speaker friends said just now so we are now looking at taking an inclusive approach when we look at youth we need to look at other aspects gender employment skills development engaging local communities all of these are outlined in more than 70 recommendations that the Secretary General has presented to the UN General Assembly which responded resoundingly by a consensus resolution in July and we, my United Nations counter-terrorism center is now moving to work with governments around the world to look at how can we respond to promote the development of regional and national plans of action to prevent violent extremism and here I will tell you that we as the United Nations also have to be extremely humble in recognizing that there is no one clear pathway to the defeat of terrorism or to mobilizing the prevention of violent extremism every society, every country must have national ownership even the most powerful countries in the world do not have a clear answer on how to deal with this but what we may need to look at is our methodologies, is our political approaches ultimately terrorism is not a military problem it is not a technical problem it is a political problem in the first instance we must look at what political policies we collectively and the national community and each government is pursuing because ultimately terrorism must have a political solution in fact in many of the countries where there is disorder as one of my colleagues said and where there is conflict these are the places where terrorists spray so we must look at taking inclusive political solutions in which all groups especially marginalized groups those of you disenfranchised most of whom are youth must feel that they can participate and contribute in a constructive way time is short dear friends and therefore I will conclude let me just say that I would like to end where I started which is the point about victims and why is the issue of victims important today we see children babies washed away in the seas of the Mediterranean on the shores of Europe we have a moral responsibility not to see children floating in the seas of the Mediterranean and other seas and therefore we must look at our own actions before we look at the actions of others and see how is it that we are contributing to the effort, the global effort the United Nations stands ready to work with you to realize that global effort and that is in a very small way why the Secretary General has presented his UN plan of action but a plan by itself means nothing it must have resonance and most importantly impact and where does that impact matter it matters in terms of victims and why does it matter because we must prevent ultimately victims that's what prevention is all about if we are to measure how we are doing in fighting terrorism we must measure it by the number of victims that we are preventing and if today the number of victims is going exponentially then we must again look at our policies and ask ourselves what is it that we are doing thank you very much indeed thank you very much Mr. Kahn so we have about 15-20 minutes and before we go to the room I would like to ask a few questions to our panelists and perhaps in reverse order perhaps quick questions with quick answers and then we will move to the public to Mr. Kahn I think it would be really interesting if you could tell us a bit more about the center and the task force that is how they are actually working, how they are interacting with governments and give us a more precise view of the work they are doing so that the audience might become more familiar with them to Professor Wang Jizhe I would like to push you just a bit further on Pakistan Recently China blocked the inscription of an affiliate from Hisbuth Tahrir to the UN terrorism list and so there is indeed a question that is posed to cooperation to fight against terrorism in the future of Chinese-Pakistan relation as it relates precisely to that question of terrorism to Jamal Khashoggi I would like to ask you about one thing that Saudi Arabia is doing which is deradicalization deradicalization is sort of the gral for many governments around the world does it exist that is prevention of terrorism that Ben Kimoon would insist we need to do is something but deradicalization that is intervening expost after someone has been radicalized seems a very high challenge that has not been properly managed by pretty much anyone and if you could enlighten us on this that would be interesting to Mr Nahanayan I really appreciated your point about the need to defeat philosophies, these pernicious ideologies and philosophies so the fight is not just about security and judicial cooperation and police but also about ideology which is part of the problem if you had to elaborate a bit further on what that exactly mean or rather what are the let's say the tracks that we could think of to go in this direction of defeating philosophies defeating ideas is a pretty arduous task and if you had other ideas it would be really interesting and last but not least Sergei, I'd like to push you a bit on the Russian intervention in Syria because you talked about the need to stop foreign interventions and it seems that Russia is doing just that intervening and more precisely on the question of Aleppo Staffan de Mistura estimated the number of al-Nusra fighters in Aleppo, in East Aleppo to about 400 maximum out of 5 to 8,000 fighters in East Aleppo, that is they are really about 5% to a maximum of 10% to less than 10% actually of the fighters so it seems that the fierce fight against the rebels in Aleppo is not really about fighting al-Nusra but really about what the other aim that you mentioned that is to say supporting supporting existing government and I say existing because you said legitimate government and I'm not sure that the government of Bashar al-Assad especially with what's happening right now can be considered legitimate and so do you really think it's a long-term solution, a minority government that is hated by a lot of people in Syria or do you think it's part of the problem more as Jamal Khashoggi was suggesting perhaps we could start by this and go in reverse order Thank you for the question first of all of course I don't know the figures and I with all my great respect I don't trust anybody including my own press because it is a I mean we are living in a fog of war but it quite be possible he's right so what we are doing is we are defeating terrorism and we are defending legitimate government and we are stopping the practice of which has been imposed on the world during the last 15 years of regime change I hope that with that less than others will stop that process I mean it started with 1999 with a criminal indiscriminate bombing of Yugoslavia now we are deterring that kind of practices so that nobody in the world will ever think that could be repeated so as to the legitimate of the government the government is there it is recognized by the UN and international community which will be there future government of that country when we impose some kind of peace and order and if it is imposeable of course we do not know what kind of government so we are not there for Mr Assad we are there though I remember very well that some countries which are great friends of ours we are from the beginning saying that Assad should go we are not saying that Assad should stay we are there for principles and for interests and including one very important principle which has been grossly violated during last actually 17 or 18 years and that is a respect for sovereignty never never repeat such acts like attack on Belgrade it was worse than Guernica thanks Mr Nahanayane a few thoughts on defeating ideologies I the question is perhaps the most difficult to answer because if we hadn't the answer then we wouldn't be in the position that we are in today but I just want to make the point that you know there are very different varieties of terrorism and the world has gone and seen this and I think Sergei and others know this only too well you have terrorism based on nationalism and linguistic terrorism and so on I concentrated on one particular because most of the others were limited in scope they confined to particular areas states etc I mean let's see the Chechen rebels in we have problems in India for instance of people who feel that they are not getting their due their own for self-preservation I talked basically of thinking which is really going across countries, territories and is winning people over by appealing to what I would call a conceptual kind of thing a new world is being built and the internet I think almost every minute probably a few hundred thousand children are being taken away into this and they are all being carried away by a holy grail kind of thing it's completely different and where the means are of no consequence we have to achieve the end so that's why I concentrated on just this one particular point of terrorism because others have been dealt with by states some better, some worse some continue, some not concessions have been made and we really know because it's really an idea an idea has been floated that we are producing a world which is very fundamentally different from what you have seen and therefore you join us and for that you can kill you can do anything you can do what happened in Belgium or what happened in France or what's happening in different parts of the world and it's really about problems in a particular region this is going across region now it's happening not only in West Asia it's happening right across the world so it's really an issue of how do you people have gotten this idea how do you meet that idea and it's dangerous because if it goes on at this point so we need to find an idea I think that is not being attended to I think the best brains and the best minds how do you work on this how do you get people because you can't monitor the internet I mean children are sitting in their rooms and ages of 14 and 13 and listening to words come the silent song almost as it is so I think we need to look at it from that point I believe I think that's the general sense here that mere military might are using force I think Mr Khashoggi mentioned it in very short detail we may as I said take and get back more soon but as I said ISIS 2.0 is going to come all over to every other part of the world and we still have the problem on us so I think we need it all I would think that the conference should if it's possible Mr Jahangir Khan should be the right person yes how do we marshal our forces to think of meeting the idea the vehicle and they're using it the vehicle is the internet we need to get an idea and use similar vehicles to defeat that's all that I have to thank you thank you very much Jamal Khashoggi on the radicalisation radicalisation programme is used not for implicated violent activists who are who been tried and committed to long sentences after they carried a violent attack it is it applied to young activists radicals who like attempted to cross the border from Turkey to Syria and they are caught by the Turkish border guards and handed over to Saudi Arabia those ones the Saudi government they have carried out a crime because we have a law in Saudi Arabia that prevent joining war in out of the country so they have violated the law and they will be sentenced no matter what to a few years in prison but it's going to be a three or four five years sentence so eventually they will come out of the prison at that time they will go through a course of the radicalisation the government knows that they will eventually come out so they have a potential hazard to the society some succeed some fail the rate varies the last percentage I saw in a local newspaper that they had 15% failures and 85% success of most of the released detainees of the program also another big segment of individuals who enjoy this program I don't know if the word enjoys correct are the one supporters of radicalism who were caught tweeting or writing on social media in support to Al Qaeda they were not caught supporting Al Qaeda organization or they are not even part of Al Qaeda organization or ISIS organization those also will be arrested and go through the program and I in brief radicals sometime grow up grow out of radicalism it is not something you live up all your life in it thank you professor Wang Chishol on Pakistan we are not in a position to discuss specific cases but in our relationship with Pakistan I think the principle is that Pakistan is probably the most important and close friend we have in the Islamic world as a whole and Pakistan gives China valuable support on many international settings and in return China has strengthened its cooperation in military economic terms with Pakistan so we have to discuss very specific cases some sensitive cases with the Pakistani government although we also understand that there are sometimes different opinions within Pakistan itself and also we have sporadic activities in Pakistan for instance some anti-China demonstrations in parts of Pakistan related to China's commercial activities so there is a very very close consultation between the two governments taking also the consideration of China's relationship with India with Afghanistan that's the principle thank you very much and last Mr Kahn so on the day-to-day work at UNHU center and task force thank you I will not bore you with the small details of the day-to-day work of our center but what I will explain to you is what is the context the context is as I explained there is today a great deficit in international cooperation relative to the growing transnational threat of terrorism what do I mean by that well as I explained the nature of terrorism is increasingly across borders as we see the bombing taking place in Syria and Iraq we see terrorists moving across borders sometimes they can move across four or five borders very quickly and they look for new opportunities when you have terrorists coming from more than 100 countries that in itself is an evidence so what is the relevance of my center at UNHU center well our main effort is to strengthen international collaboration in a practical way and it is based on a very concrete mandate that comes from the UNHU you know that until today there is no agreed definition no international agreed definition of terrorism at the UNHU for years the legal committee has been debating forever what is the definition of terrorism and we know what the reasons why there is no definition is because one man's terrorist has been another man or another woman's liberation fighter and vice versa and so notwithstanding the fact that there is no agreed international or united nations definition of terrorism the general assembly of the united nations all the member states of the united nations still manage to adopt a global consensus document called the global counter terrorism strategy that was adopted ten years ago and our job as the united nations my counter terrorism implementation task force that coordinates 38 UN agencies is to support member governments in implementing the global counter terrorism strategy at the global regional and national levels and that is now being complimented by the new united nations plan to prevent violent extremism one last point in this context is that the UN global counter terrorism strategy it's first pillar is called conditions conducive the reason is called conditions conducive is because member states could not even agree to call it root causes that in itself was politicized at the united nations because some countries were not comfortable with the word root causes and they had to adopt another terminology called conditions conducive and for the last ten years that first pillar remained moribond until member states finally responded to the call by the secretary general to look at in effect root causes by addressing the drivers of violent extremism and that is why now the plan of action to prevent violent extremism has is meant to give content to that first pillar of the UN global counter terrorism strategy and our UN counter terrorism center now is working across the world including here with the eminence state of Qatar I've come here to sign an agreement when how we can strengthen our collaboration to step up our efforts to support governments around the world in preventing violent extremism thanks very much we have time for just a few questions and we'll take them in turn I see Mr Matt Issa from Malaysia on the first round microphone thank you I'm from Malaysia representing the global movement of moderates a Malaysian initiative in providing CV and PVE and we are following very much very close the development in the UN especially the last meeting in Geneva and echoing what Mr Jamal has mentioned about the need for us to solve the issues according to the language of the day I think this is what is very much needed now as far as counter narrative is concerned and especially narratives that are related to religion I'm not saying much of that being done in as far as CVE or PVE in our counter narrative so if that could be promoted especially from Saudi from Qatar there will be a good effort and these narratives are being exposed to youth especially in that part of the world as you know that they are very attractive now or very attractive now in Malaysia in Indonesia, in southern Thailand the second thing is again echoing to what Mr Khan has mentioned about victims I think one part we need to expose or let the world know about victims but we also need to expose the sector of act of terrorism being a muslim I feel embarrassed now the topic of the discussion is about terrorism but the whole concentration is about muslim terrorists no single word was mentioned about the act of terrorism where the victims are muslim for example the latest situation in Burma, in Myanmar how the muslims the Rakhine are suffering the atrocities the ethnic lensing that's happening up there and I think the world need to be open or need to open their eyes also on the situation in that part of the world and the victims being muslim and so on and so forth thank you behind you, the lady in yellow suit thank you for this beneficial panel I just have a comment it's not a question for Mr Sergey Karaganov he said I quote that CC didn't prepare Koudite the whole Egypt would have been in flames I actually strongly disagree to this statement because terrorist bombs bombs in Sinai Peninsula has increased after his Koudite and the number of innocent Egyptian soldiers and other like people there like that die on monthly basis increased, significantly increased and on the other hand if we can define my own definition for terrorism as the killing of innocent civilians so that's exactly what CC did when he killed around 1000 in Rabaa massacre that the human rights watch report said that it was the worst massacre in Egypt's modern history so CC wasn't the hero that saved Egypt from terrorism but he was the dictator who killed and violated human rights but in just like a more formal way, thank you Thanks, the gentleman just the rank in front of you Merci beaucoup I don't know if I will speak in French or English French, ok En fait pour moi le terrorisme c'est le plus grand défi du 21e siècle ce n'est pas le développement de l'Afrique, l'Afrique va se développer croyez nous c'est le terrorisme qui est le plus grand défi et c'est la plus grande menace à la qualité de vie parce que quand vous vivez avec autour de vous, vous ne savez pas s'il y a un acte terroriste qui se prépare vous ne pouvez pas bien vivre malheureusement je dois suivre un peu ce qui a été dit tout à l'heure par le directeur d'Al Arabia et tout ce qui on parlait notamment le représentant des nations unies on n'a pas encore attaqué les causes profondes jusqu'à aujourd'hui pour moi peut-être en train de faire la prévention de court terme mais la prévention de long terme c'est comment faire pour que le problème disparaisse de la scène ça c'est un combat de longue haleine on parle des SDG Sustainable Development Goals pour moi il faudrait avoir un Sustainable Peace Goals si je peux dire ça commence déjà à l'école pour que la tolérance se développe dans les écoles qu'on éduque dans tous les pays les jeunes pour s'accepter pour que celui qui vit en Europe qui ne dise pas que l'islam c'est l'ennemi etc. je suis pas sûr qu'aujourd'hui la situation soit en tout cas gérée comme il le faut dans les différents états donc il faut faire cet effort au niveau culturel, au niveau de l'éducation le reste c'est des agendas intérieurs il faut que les pays développent l'emploi des jeunes etc. mais le plus important c'est le message clé comment développer la tolérance au niveau mondial et ça je ne suis pas sûr qu'aujourd'hui il y ait des initiatives fortes au niveau des étapes merci beaucoup Alfredo Valedao ici derrière vous merci et après une dernière question ça marche respect for sovereignty c'est un message pour l'intégrité d'Ukraine mais ce n'est pas le point Mr. Karaganov nous montre 2 types de terrorism Stade terrorism Hitler ou NGO terrorism non gouvernemental je pense qu'il y a un troisième type qui est plus plus lethal et pervasive dans notre monde aujourd'hui c'est Stade terrorism on peut voir que tout le monde Pakistan, Darfur et pour ça je pouvais même mettre Dombas mais l'idée est défendre des étapes existants dans le nom de stabilité et contre les caos oui, ça ne veut pas défendre des régimes existantes nous savons tous qu'on a des régimes sponsorisants et on sait aussi que les régimes brutales et totalitaires n'ont pas de terrorisme qui est assez donc il n'y a pas de manière qu'on puisse combattre le terrorisme sérieusement si on ne s'occupe pas de ce problème d'étapes sponsorisants qui est la plus importante aujourd'hui qui signifie que la communauté internationale de tout ce qui signifie ce terme doit décider sur la légitimité des régimes, pas sur la légitimité des étapes merci, et une dernière question et puis nous devons s'occuper de votre droit ici merci quand j'ai écouté les intervenants je suis convaincu une fois de plus qu'il est impossible de combattre le terrorisme malheureusement nous faisons toujours une erreur, il y a les bons et les mauvais terroristes quand on écoute les intervenants tout le monde va parler de la fenêtre de la politique de son état d'abord il faut comprendre une chose que depuis le début de l'histoire le terrorisme et les terroristes ont été toujours soutenus par les états et on parlait du terrorisme c'était sponsor terrorisme moi je dirais qu'il n'y a que ça aucun groupe terroriste ne peut se développer sans le soutien d'un groupe d'un état ou d'un service de renseignement donc il faut prendre ça d'abord comme un constat parce que les états malheureusement font une guerre asymmétrique contre d'autres états via le terrorisme et ils utilisent le terrorisme diplomatique dans le passé, aujourd'hui on parle de terrorisme islamique parce que dans le passé l'idéologie était le marxisme et le léninisme et les gens faisaient la terreur enant du marxisme et du léninisme après la chute de l'union soviétique malheureusement la religion est à nouveau devenue une valeur politique partout dans le monde dans le monde chrétien et dans le monde musulman aujourd'hui on utilise la religion pour faire du terrorisme et personne ne peut expliquer qu'un groupe terroriste sans le soutien d'un état ou d'un service de renseignement peut se développer par exemple, prenons le cas de plusieurs groupes je vais terminer dans les médias ou ailleurs on parle toujours par exemple pour un certain groupe on parle de terrorisme pour d'autres on parle de combattant de la liberté pour d'autres des guerriers nous avons tous malheureusement notre part de responsabilité que ce soit les médias, que ce soit les injures, que ce soit les universitaires ou les chercheurs parce que nous faisons cette distinction entre les terroristes et je vais terminer en disant que si aujourd'hui tout le monde ne condamne pas de le terrorisme sans dire mais parce qu'ils ont commis cet acte terroriste mais et essayer de trouver une raison aucune raison qu'il soit d'or politique ethnique ou idéologique ne peut expliquer et ne doit expliquer la tuerie ou la carnage des innocents merci beaucoup je vais me tourner vers le panel et simplement en proposant sa entrevue il faut vraiment qu'on arrête bientôt peut-être Sergei qui a été interpellé à de reprises de répondre s'il le souhaite merci, est-ce qu'il y a quelqu'un d'autre sur le panel qui veut adresser des questions qu'on a beaucoup d'entre eux étaient commentaries mais est-ce qu'il y a quelque chose que tu veux ? oui c'est l'idée de la narrative de l'account est belle mais ça ne marche effectivement on a besoin on a toujours besoin d'un narrative de l'account mais je pense que le plus efficace de la narrative de l'account c'est d'avoir un travail en état un bon gouvernement c'est ce que nous roulons la logique de l'extrême d'avoir un hope si pas de la société le hope de la société de la société je crois que Tunisia pour exemple même si elle a un peu de l'anarchisme ici et là elle va se produire parce que les gens ont commencé d'avoir des espaces les gens dans une société qui perdent des espaces pas de narrative de l'account les causes de la route qui va donner plus de l'anarchisme en Syrie pour exemple aujourd'hui parce que la anarchie qui a des espaces tous les idées radicales pour les jeunes enfants donc on pourrait attendre une génération de radicales en Syrie parce que nous vivons en Syrie dans l'anarchie si nous voulons porter la paix et l'ordre et la stabilité et soutenir les guerres qui veulent un bon futur pour leur pays radicalisme merci merci beaucoup c'est très intéressant discussion