Our heritage means people turn to us when their liberty is at risk. But the question of how far to intervene has yet to be settled
Let's welcome the fact that the threat of civilian massacres in Libya may have been removed. The bloodthirsty dictator who oppresses his people doesn't deserve any compassion. But this legitimate feeling should not prevent us seeing the situation as it is and worrying.
France is at war. It isn't just actively involved in a broad coalition. The predominant role that we have played in the operation at every stage, including the military, puts us in the frontline. Libyans on both sides are well aware of this: Benghazi is bedecked with tricolour flags and in Tripoli, curses are hurled against France. We can feel quite proud that our country has had the courage to act, but that doesn't stop us thinking about how this action is heavy with consequences, risks and unresolved questions.
The war in which we are engaged cannot be reduced to the sterile formula of an "air exclusion zone" which the members of the UN security council have approved.
This term suggests a protective hand stretched across the sky to gently prevent any violence. The reality is harsher. We are killing. We are bombing vehicles full of soldiers. The fact that they are probably criminals launching an assault against unarmed members of the population doesn't change anything in this assessment: it's no good saying "we will not intervene on the ground", for it's on the ground that these soldiers have been killed.
We are in effect engaged in ground combat, even if we are striking ? for the moment ? from the air. To justify it, French diplomacy invokes the small print of the contract, which you don't read properly before you sign it: the UN 1973 resolution stipulates that one can take "all measures, including military, intended to protect civilians".
That's where we are ? a "humanitarian" war. We are launching destructive military operations against a country which has not attacked us and which is not threatening our interests. In other words, we are totally outside military doctrine as laid out in particular by the white paper on defence in 2007.
Our sole motive for using force is the violation of human rights. We are in a perfect case of the "right to intervene", a concept which paradoxically is triumphing at a time when its originator has left the ministry of foreign affairs.
This concept poses numerous problems, which has led to its being kept out of international law in favour of a more consensual formula: "the responsibility to protect".
The dangers of the right to intervene, which leaves it to the discretion of the powerful to attack whom they want, have often been highlighted.
The most flagrant case of dangerous intervention was the US intervention in Iraq in 2003. At the time France was the country that stood up against this intervention and pointed out its pernicious effects. Do we believe such a principle is less dangerous when it is France that is applying it?
Let's not make unjust accusations about those who launched this operation. Let's give them credit for acting according to their conscience, to spare human lives. But the fact remains that the phase governed by emotions must be left behind and, in order to carry out this war and perhaps others, we must work out a doctrine. What is it and who should formulate it?
We are waging a humanitarian war. We are attacking a regime in accordance with the idea that we have of human dignity. Well done. But is this principle applicable everywhere? Should it form the basis of our foreign policy and guide all our decisions? In other times this question would be theoretical, but in these days of Arab revolt it is completely concrete. Must we prepare ourselves to act tomorrow in Syria, Yemen, and Algeria?
The other hypothesis is that we cannot, and would not want to, champion our humanitarian principles everywhere. To put it clearly, that would mean that we would have to choose. But who is to choose? Is it an exclusive and discretionary prerogative of the president of the republic? Does a situation have to make tears flow at the Elys�e for us to send our soldiers?
All these choices are engaging France greatly, and are not without risks. The international consensus that carried us is fracturing now, and Arab countries, along with others, are beginning to express their reservations. In addition, whatever the superiority of our army in a head-on confrontation, we must think about the serious harms ? firstly, of course, terrorism ? to which we expose ourselves by intervening against people with neither scruples nor boundaries, like Muammar Gadaffi.
I don't suggest that we should stop intervening. But in order to continue to act and to do so in unity, whatever the surprises, good or bad, a national debate is necessary.
The Assembl�e nationale must not just be consulted after the event. It must be able to lead a general discussion on the subject, one in which public opinion must participate. It is not a question of hobbling the executive body but of giving it a clear mandate and setting limits.
Of course we expect a president of the republic to have the courage to decide on a military offensive. We also need to hear that he is capable of not succumbing to pure emotion. Our republican heritage gives us special international privileges, and all peoples naturally turn to us when their liberty is threatened. What answer must we and can we give them? That is what the French will have to decide one day. Together.
No comments:
Post a Comment