Could we let die before our eyes of viewers to the victims of Gaddafi? I think not. The bold decision of the UN to use force legitimately questioned our consciences Libya peace. Taken the initiative of Great Britain and France, which joined the United States and other countries, this decision also raises important questions necessary for the European project.
That are both moral and political. The moral questions are concerned with the use of violence by states. The question of just war, that we considered since antiquity, and that may well be addressed by theoretical discourses and historical references, this has not stopped being a permanent source of doubts and uncertainties, we can not afford to discard a slap.
These uncertainties affect moral, of course, in political terms. We can see in it the symptoms of a European Union still unfinished, and the Libyan crisis, which follows other, we remind you to be strengthened, made more coherent, more alive, stronger, and the Treaty of Lisbon, we drove to believe.
European cooperation in the cultural or economic stalled in customs and can boast significant achievements in these areas, in which every European citizen measure the consequences. Despite being aware of the need to strengthen such cooperation, we can easily understand its meaning and method.
In the defense, however, our perception of the European project is still blurred and contradictory. This is, of course, the difficulty of advancing to the USA together with traditions, with injuries and conflicting ambitions. But above all it should, I believe, the very nature of the European project.
Built in response to the wars of the twentieth century, this project bases its legitimacy on ensuring peace. How to accept then see which leads to outbreak of violence? These theoretical difficulties, while they are overcome and do not lead to paralysis, I seem to augur well: we all know that nothing would be worse than a warmonger Europe ...
powerless except Europe. It is therefore essential to stay on the ridge line, complex but necessary. The Frenches doctors would decide this conflict. Began to respond, beyond forbidden frontiers, the wounded and sick of all communities: capital was a political gesture. Thus was born the duty and then the right to intervene to prevent, if not prevent, mass atrocity.
How to consider this requirement to the European level? This not avoid the debate and to build instruments more efficient, more reactive. This primarily involves defining a doctrine that allows us to guide us in the opposing camps of European diplomacy that debate between universalism and retreat.
After several resolutions authorizing the use of force to protect populations and then I had made as a right of interference by the international community in the internal affairs of States, the UN adopted in 2005, unanimously principle of "responsibility to protect" civilians, over borders and sovereignty.
After the Balkans, Sarajevo, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Guinea, is in this context as it has been possible to operate in Libya, and is in this framework we have to consider the Franco-British, then American who has given result in resolution 1973. The UN, African Union, Arab League are thankfully there to provide the legal framework that makes this transitional violence, thanks to resolution 1973? environment for real peace, pacifism preferable to let civilians massacred.
It is therefore from these bases of international law and Europe must now engage in a substantive debate about their future and their ambitions. In times of doubts and difficulties that may seem irrelevant or untimely. I, however, is more necessary than ever. This work is actually defining what Europe needs to get out of structural vacillation.
Are we a regional power with regional management vocation, such as the Arab League and ASEAN, or, on the contrary, we intend to make the world a model of multilateralism to serve the common good? I am pleased to note that France and Britain have together outlined an initial response to this fundamental question. 
That are both moral and political. The moral questions are concerned with the use of violence by states. The question of just war, that we considered since antiquity, and that may well be addressed by theoretical discourses and historical references, this has not stopped being a permanent source of doubts and uncertainties, we can not afford to discard a slap.
These uncertainties affect moral, of course, in political terms. We can see in it the symptoms of a European Union still unfinished, and the Libyan crisis, which follows other, we remind you to be strengthened, made more coherent, more alive, stronger, and the Treaty of Lisbon, we drove to believe.
European cooperation in the cultural or economic stalled in customs and can boast significant achievements in these areas, in which every European citizen measure the consequences. Despite being aware of the need to strengthen such cooperation, we can easily understand its meaning and method.
In the defense, however, our perception of the European project is still blurred and contradictory. This is, of course, the difficulty of advancing to the USA together with traditions, with injuries and conflicting ambitions. But above all it should, I believe, the very nature of the European project.
Built in response to the wars of the twentieth century, this project bases its legitimacy on ensuring peace. How to accept then see which leads to outbreak of violence? These theoretical difficulties, while they are overcome and do not lead to paralysis, I seem to augur well: we all know that nothing would be worse than a warmonger Europe ...
powerless except Europe. It is therefore essential to stay on the ridge line, complex but necessary. The Frenches doctors would decide this conflict. Began to respond, beyond forbidden frontiers, the wounded and sick of all communities: capital was a political gesture. Thus was born the duty and then the right to intervene to prevent, if not prevent, mass atrocity.
How to consider this requirement to the European level? This not avoid the debate and to build instruments more efficient, more reactive. This primarily involves defining a doctrine that allows us to guide us in the opposing camps of European diplomacy that debate between universalism and retreat.
After several resolutions authorizing the use of force to protect populations and then I had made as a right of interference by the international community in the internal affairs of States, the UN adopted in 2005, unanimously principle of "responsibility to protect" civilians, over borders and sovereignty.
After the Balkans, Sarajevo, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Guinea, is in this context as it has been possible to operate in Libya, and is in this framework we have to consider the Franco-British, then American who has given result in resolution 1973. The UN, African Union, Arab League are thankfully there to provide the legal framework that makes this transitional violence, thanks to resolution 1973? environment for real peace, pacifism preferable to let civilians massacred.
It is therefore from these bases of international law and Europe must now engage in a substantive debate about their future and their ambitions. In times of doubts and difficulties that may seem irrelevant or untimely. I, however, is more necessary than ever. This work is actually defining what Europe needs to get out of structural vacillation.
Are we a regional power with regional management vocation, such as the Arab League and ASEAN, or, on the contrary, we intend to make the world a model of multilateralism to serve the common good? I am pleased to note that France and Britain have together outlined an initial response to this fundamental question.
No comments:
Post a Comment