Where does the war "humanitarian"?

of Other Media | Sunday, March 27, 2011
France is at war. It is not only involved a broad coalition. The role we played in the operation at all stages, including military, puts us on the frontline. Libyans on both sides do not make a mistake: it hanging in Benghazi with tricolor flags and Tripoli, is launched anathemas against France. One can feel quite proud that our country has had the courage to act. That does not excuse considering how this action has serious consequences, risks and unresolved issues. For war in which we are engaged is not reduced to the formula sanitized fly zone that members of the Security Council have approved. This term suggests a fly protective hand extended on the sky and down, gently, to prevent any violence. Reality is harsher. We kill. We bomb vehicles filled with soldiers. Whether probably criminals launched an assault on unarmed civilians does not alter this fact: we have beautiful state that "we will not intervene on the ground" is well on the ground that these soldiers are killed . We are indeed engaged in ground fighting, even if we strike - for now - from the sky. To justify it, the French diplomacy relies on small lines of the contract, the one we always sign without reading them: resolution 1973 states that may be taken "all measures, including military, to protect civilians." Here we are: it is a war "humanitarian". We are launching destructive military operations against a country that we were not attacked, that does not threaten our interests, that we are totally outside of military doctrine as it was developed, especially by the White Paper on Defence in 2007. Our only reason for use of force is a violation of humanitarian law by the country in question. We are in a very pure case of the famous "right of interference", a concept that overcomes paradoxically at a time when the designer left the Foreign Ministry ... However, this concept of right of intervention raises many issues which have also led to the shelving of international law in favor of a more consensual, "Responsibility to Protect." The dangers of this right of interference, right at the discretion of the powerful that they want to attack, have often been highlighted. The most flagrant case of interference was dangerous in 2003, the U.S. intervention in Iraq. France was at that time the country stood up against this intervention and highlighted the adverse effects. Today it is believed that such a principle is less dangerous when it is France that is applied?Do not do bad to trial those who have launched this operation. Give them credit for having acted according to their conscience, to save lives. Still, it must now move beyond the emotion and to lead this war and perhaps others, to develop doctrine.What is it and who should make? We are conducting a humanitarian war. We attack a system under design that we have of human dignity. Bravo. But this principle is it applicable everywhere? Should base our foreign policy and guide all our decisions?In other eras, the question could be theoretical, but in these times of Arab Revolt, it is quite practical. Should we prepare ourselves to act tomorrow Syria, Yemen, Algeria?In the same vein, do not expect not to leave Afghanistan, where our presence continues to guarantee the respect of civilian populations ... The other hypothesis is that we can not nor wanted to be everywhere the champions of our humanitarian principles. Clearly, this would mean that we should choose. But choosing whom and for what? Is it an exclusive prerogative and discretion of the President of the Republic? Should a situation draws tears from the Elysee so we can send our troops? All these choices and engage strongly in France are not without risks. The international consensus that carried us today disintegrates, and the Arab countries are beginning, with others, to express their reservations. Moreover, whatever the point of our military superiority in a frontal attack, he must consider the significant harm - first course, terrorism - which is exposed by intervening against unscrupulous characters or limits such as Colonel Gaddafi . I do not pretend that we must dispense with it. But to continue to act and do it in unity, regardless of surprises, good or bad, we reserve the sequence of operations, we need a national debate on the foundations of our military action. The Assembly must not only be consulted after the fact on a particular operation. It must lead on this issue and a general reflection that involves the public. It's not hinder the executive but to give him a clear mandate and limits. The feeling he has been engaged in a just war can not take place or doctrine or national consent. We certainly expect a president he has the heart and nerves to decide a military offensive. We also need to feel that he can resist the pure emotion.Our heritage gives us Republican special international responsibilities and all people naturally turn to us when their freedom is threatened. What response should we and can we bring them? That it will one day decide that the French. Together. Jean-Christophe Rufin, a writer, a former ambassador of France to Dakar (2007-2010) In The World