In a chat on cnn. fr, Natalie Nougayrède, journalist in charge of diplomatic affairs to the "World", says Alain Juppe was shocked to learn the recognition of the Libyan opposition by the Head of State. Many embassies have been evacuated from Tripoli, and if the Europeans have been sent to Benghazi in scouts or humanitarian aid, the ability to monitor the front lines or appears limited.
Europeans are foremost in a posture of political and humanitarian support to the opposition to Colonel Gaddafi. But there are among them, to move to a higher stage that would involve military resources, differences. France and the United Kingdom seem to go it alone in invoking a no-fly zone and, more importantly, "other options to prevent air attacks" against the insurgency.
Germany, which traditionally reluctant to enter into military operations, let alone in Africa, opposed the use of force. It is unlikely, since all Western capitals have conditioned a response to the existence of a "legal basis" indisputable. This can be made by the body responsible for peace and security, namely the Security Council of the UN.
Some diplomats allege, it is true, the precedent of Kosovo in 1999, when NATO bombed Milosevic's forces in the absence of an explicit green light from the UN. But one of the major factors preventing a repeat of this scenario is the Iraq war, the invasion of a country to overthrow a dictator, an operation that remains to this day a huge point of contention on the international stage.
Yes, obviously, the Foreign Minister was not informed beforehand of the decision of Nicolas Sarkozy, which was announced by representatives of the Libyan uprising, and not officially by the Elysee. It's a funny episode to say the least and has placed France in a position of isolation, Thursday in Brussels.
Alain Juppe, according to witnesses, was shocked to hear that a phone call while he was meeting with his German counterpart, Guido Westerwelle. It is one of the poles for active decision making, but ultimately it is the head of state who sets the line quite personal. The personal staff of the President, in association with the military and the Department of Defense, provide expertise that weighs course.
There is a catch-up factor after the "failures" of the policy at the time of Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. We must remember that before the leak of Ben Ali, the Egyptian president, France hailed, in a statement, and the reforms he announced after his plane took off to Saudi Arabia, the Elysee was content take note.
Similarly, when Mubarak resigned on 11 February, France hailed his courage. There was a deficit of language French official during a period to welcome the advent of an Arab democracy movement. I note that since Alain Juppe was prepared to return to the Quai d'Orsay, Nicolas Sarkozy and his advisers have sought to inject more value in the speech, now ranging up to compare the Arab revolutions that occurred in Eastern Europe in 1989.
There is another factor: Libya is not a former French colony, which opens space for a more proactive policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is there in line with the explanations he had given in late January, in a press conference that France was under a "reservation" with regard to its former colonial empire.
For the rest, one can imagine that it all fits into one share of bad conscience, because Nicolas Sarkozy had offered to Colonel Qaddafi probably his greatest "finest hour" on the international scene, allowing it to great fanfare in Paris in late 2007. It was the first time that the Libyan dictator was received in a Western capital on a state visit, after years where he was a pariah.
What seems most striking is the absolute solo French president, without any consultation with its partners. This causes a reaction of irritation, even deeper, perhaps because it is customary. The French president's image in Europe, a leader who responds epidermal certainly active, but has tendency to try to force it through.
Berlusconi's Italy was initially very reluctant to take action against the power of Qadhafi, with whom Rome had spent the last years of important agreements on energy and migration plans. Germany, she is wary of military action before any European in nature, as may have appeared to consider Paris and London.
Because the point of view of Chancellor Merkel, NATO, which is best entitled to take action if necessary. In this case, it is not to race with shallots, a competition in the bidding war to see who is the most critical of Qaddafi or threaten military. It is about creating an international mobilization strong enough for the Libyan leader renounces its current policy, or that whole sections of his entourage away from him.
In the absence of a resolution to the Security Council of UN authorization to use force, military intervention on the territory of Libya or in the air seems a figment of the imagination. Germany, without doubt, emphasizes the need to appear united on the European level, and is wary of what she perceives as untimely French initiatives.
But in reality it is a great confusion that dominates the whole treatment of the Libyan crisis, I think. Nobody seems to know how to prevent the worst, the maintenance of Gaddafi and a host of atrocities. There is no unity among the major powers on this issue. From a strictly military official contacts I've had say that the French air force could easily operate from bases in southern France.
Thus, aircraft carriers would not even be necessary, as Libya is so close. But the scale of an operation to strike on this country would cost and the mobilization of significant resources for the French as the British. Therefore, in any event, U.S. support would be sought, with the logistics if necessary, the Gulf countries that have good air capabilities as the UAE.
It is a very good question, because part of attacks by government forces Libyan behaves land, with tanks and artillery. But it is not without reason that the leaders of the insurgency appear to have asked Benghazi air strikes on selected military targets to Gadhafi faithful. We can not exclude it, but obviously it will never be told officially.
The supply of arms to the rebels was a theme discussed in Congress. The British newspaper The Independent has recently said that Washington had sent the Saudis, to provide arms to rebels from Libya, adding that Riyadh had refused. I do not have other elements. I can not give a specific answer.
I just know that the Libyan emissaries who were the last two days in Europe expressed a form of despair, saying that if their interlocutors of external military support - without ground troops - not involved, a catastrophe could occur. At this stage it is difficult to see a positive outcome to this crisis, at least that would not go through further violence.
If Gaddafi managed to consolidate its positions and to remain in power is a terrible failure for all the international diplomacy that has been deployed in recent weeks. Sanctions, asset freezes, arms embargoes, entry into the game of international justice, this principle has been implemented for nothing.
He became an actor in this case dramatically by acting as a kind of mediator between the rebel base in Benghazi and the Libyan Elysee. He seems to have contributed to the decision of Nicolas Sarkozy to recognize the transitional Council Libyan, and many French officials say privately is very confused this sudden impact.
For the philosopher, one can imagine that the Libyan case resonates with other media-fighting policies that could lead case of Massoud in Afghanistan, the Sarajevo siege, or rebels in Darfur. On the subject of Darfur, it may be recalled that "BHL" had urged the international community to harness the forces of rebellion against Khartoum.
In calling for air strikes against Gaddafi's troops, it takes a very interventionist stance in the context of civil war. If it occurred outside a green light from the UN, yes. This is why Westerners, including those who hold more aggressive speech, keep saying that nothing can be done in the military but are not authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter United.
Otherwise, the entire legitimacy of an intervention that is shattered, and the specter of an invasion, the American model in Iraq, which began to soar. It seems impossible. Although the Egyptians, it seems, were approached on this subject by some Europeans. It is a total refusal has been expressed in Cairo, according to my information, one reason being that there is still a considerable number of Egyptians living in Libya.
Moreover, one can imagine that having much to do to stabilize the domestic political situation in Egypt, members who take the helm of power now does not want to embark on an adventure of this kind. The summit outcome document includes no decision on the implementation of a no-fly zone, because there is no consensus.
The EU as such does not appear as a military actor on the crisis. It activates its "soft power", humanitarian aid, its ability to exert pressure through sanctions. France and the UK are in fact the only European powers with the capacity, and apparently there a political will to act militarily if necessary.
If this happens, it could be that as part of an ad hoc coalition outside the European security policy, and outside of NATO. Chat moderated by Olivier Biffaud 
Europeans are foremost in a posture of political and humanitarian support to the opposition to Colonel Gaddafi. But there are among them, to move to a higher stage that would involve military resources, differences. France and the United Kingdom seem to go it alone in invoking a no-fly zone and, more importantly, "other options to prevent air attacks" against the insurgency.
Germany, which traditionally reluctant to enter into military operations, let alone in Africa, opposed the use of force. It is unlikely, since all Western capitals have conditioned a response to the existence of a "legal basis" indisputable. This can be made by the body responsible for peace and security, namely the Security Council of the UN.
Some diplomats allege, it is true, the precedent of Kosovo in 1999, when NATO bombed Milosevic's forces in the absence of an explicit green light from the UN. But one of the major factors preventing a repeat of this scenario is the Iraq war, the invasion of a country to overthrow a dictator, an operation that remains to this day a huge point of contention on the international stage.
Yes, obviously, the Foreign Minister was not informed beforehand of the decision of Nicolas Sarkozy, which was announced by representatives of the Libyan uprising, and not officially by the Elysee. It's a funny episode to say the least and has placed France in a position of isolation, Thursday in Brussels.
Alain Juppe, according to witnesses, was shocked to hear that a phone call while he was meeting with his German counterpart, Guido Westerwelle. It is one of the poles for active decision making, but ultimately it is the head of state who sets the line quite personal. The personal staff of the President, in association with the military and the Department of Defense, provide expertise that weighs course.
There is a catch-up factor after the "failures" of the policy at the time of Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. We must remember that before the leak of Ben Ali, the Egyptian president, France hailed, in a statement, and the reforms he announced after his plane took off to Saudi Arabia, the Elysee was content take note.
Similarly, when Mubarak resigned on 11 February, France hailed his courage. There was a deficit of language French official during a period to welcome the advent of an Arab democracy movement. I note that since Alain Juppe was prepared to return to the Quai d'Orsay, Nicolas Sarkozy and his advisers have sought to inject more value in the speech, now ranging up to compare the Arab revolutions that occurred in Eastern Europe in 1989.
There is another factor: Libya is not a former French colony, which opens space for a more proactive policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is there in line with the explanations he had given in late January, in a press conference that France was under a "reservation" with regard to its former colonial empire.
For the rest, one can imagine that it all fits into one share of bad conscience, because Nicolas Sarkozy had offered to Colonel Qaddafi probably his greatest "finest hour" on the international scene, allowing it to great fanfare in Paris in late 2007. It was the first time that the Libyan dictator was received in a Western capital on a state visit, after years where he was a pariah.
What seems most striking is the absolute solo French president, without any consultation with its partners. This causes a reaction of irritation, even deeper, perhaps because it is customary. The French president's image in Europe, a leader who responds epidermal certainly active, but has tendency to try to force it through.
Berlusconi's Italy was initially very reluctant to take action against the power of Qadhafi, with whom Rome had spent the last years of important agreements on energy and migration plans. Germany, she is wary of military action before any European in nature, as may have appeared to consider Paris and London.
Because the point of view of Chancellor Merkel, NATO, which is best entitled to take action if necessary. In this case, it is not to race with shallots, a competition in the bidding war to see who is the most critical of Qaddafi or threaten military. It is about creating an international mobilization strong enough for the Libyan leader renounces its current policy, or that whole sections of his entourage away from him.
In the absence of a resolution to the Security Council of UN authorization to use force, military intervention on the territory of Libya or in the air seems a figment of the imagination. Germany, without doubt, emphasizes the need to appear united on the European level, and is wary of what she perceives as untimely French initiatives.
But in reality it is a great confusion that dominates the whole treatment of the Libyan crisis, I think. Nobody seems to know how to prevent the worst, the maintenance of Gaddafi and a host of atrocities. There is no unity among the major powers on this issue. From a strictly military official contacts I've had say that the French air force could easily operate from bases in southern France.
Thus, aircraft carriers would not even be necessary, as Libya is so close. But the scale of an operation to strike on this country would cost and the mobilization of significant resources for the French as the British. Therefore, in any event, U.S. support would be sought, with the logistics if necessary, the Gulf countries that have good air capabilities as the UAE.
It is a very good question, because part of attacks by government forces Libyan behaves land, with tanks and artillery. But it is not without reason that the leaders of the insurgency appear to have asked Benghazi air strikes on selected military targets to Gadhafi faithful. We can not exclude it, but obviously it will never be told officially.
The supply of arms to the rebels was a theme discussed in Congress. The British newspaper The Independent has recently said that Washington had sent the Saudis, to provide arms to rebels from Libya, adding that Riyadh had refused. I do not have other elements. I can not give a specific answer.
I just know that the Libyan emissaries who were the last two days in Europe expressed a form of despair, saying that if their interlocutors of external military support - without ground troops - not involved, a catastrophe could occur. At this stage it is difficult to see a positive outcome to this crisis, at least that would not go through further violence.
If Gaddafi managed to consolidate its positions and to remain in power is a terrible failure for all the international diplomacy that has been deployed in recent weeks. Sanctions, asset freezes, arms embargoes, entry into the game of international justice, this principle has been implemented for nothing.
He became an actor in this case dramatically by acting as a kind of mediator between the rebel base in Benghazi and the Libyan Elysee. He seems to have contributed to the decision of Nicolas Sarkozy to recognize the transitional Council Libyan, and many French officials say privately is very confused this sudden impact.
For the philosopher, one can imagine that the Libyan case resonates with other media-fighting policies that could lead case of Massoud in Afghanistan, the Sarajevo siege, or rebels in Darfur. On the subject of Darfur, it may be recalled that "BHL" had urged the international community to harness the forces of rebellion against Khartoum.
In calling for air strikes against Gaddafi's troops, it takes a very interventionist stance in the context of civil war. If it occurred outside a green light from the UN, yes. This is why Westerners, including those who hold more aggressive speech, keep saying that nothing can be done in the military but are not authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter United.
Otherwise, the entire legitimacy of an intervention that is shattered, and the specter of an invasion, the American model in Iraq, which began to soar. It seems impossible. Although the Egyptians, it seems, were approached on this subject by some Europeans. It is a total refusal has been expressed in Cairo, according to my information, one reason being that there is still a considerable number of Egyptians living in Libya.
Moreover, one can imagine that having much to do to stabilize the domestic political situation in Egypt, members who take the helm of power now does not want to embark on an adventure of this kind. The summit outcome document includes no decision on the implementation of a no-fly zone, because there is no consensus.
The EU as such does not appear as a military actor on the crisis. It activates its "soft power", humanitarian aid, its ability to exert pressure through sanctions. France and the UK are in fact the only European powers with the capacity, and apparently there a political will to act militarily if necessary.
If this happens, it could be that as part of an ad hoc coalition outside the European security policy, and outside of NATO. Chat moderated by Olivier Biffaud
- Steer clear of Le Pen, Sarkozy tells party (11/03/2011)
- Qaddafi Threatens to Tell Secret to Topple Sarkozy (10/03/2011)
- Sarkozy will reportedly call for air strikes on Gadhafi's headquarters (10/03/2011)
- France's Sarkozy to fall over "grave secret", says Libyan State Media | Al Arabiya (10/03/2011)
- Sarkozy calls on EU to recognise Libyan rebels - Reuters Africa (11/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment