Cejiss

Chirac’s unmasked condescension to the signatories of the now infamous ‘letter of eight,’ was publically calculated to raise the ethical dimensions of French foreign policy as the US, UK and a coalition of the willing gathered in the Kuwaiti sands (March 2003) preparing to force Hussein from power; to fulfil a regime-change strategy. The image of Chirac and Schroeder (and Putin) slowly shaking their heads in shame at the lack of Anglo-American ethics, and their own moral superiority – ‘we would never initiate a war of choice’ they seemed to tell the world, tongue in cheek – defined intra-European relations for years to come.

The EU was split as a result; with the Franco-German alliance attempting to softly balance the US, placate the UK, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal and coerce Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into accepting a secondary role in EU foreign-policy decision-making. When Chirac remarked that the Central and East European signatories of the ‘letter of eight’ and the ‘Vilnius letter’ (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) missed a good opportunity ‘to shut up,’ precious few raised an eyebrow or doubted that France truly had the EU’s long-term interests in mind since the EU was, at the time, the only international organisation to have prioritised the pursuit of civilian values as the core of its international engagements and France was a key engine driving such an approach.

Eight years since the Iraq debacle – nearly to the day – and it seems that France has moved on; not from its self-professed moral bearings, but from representing even a fragment of the civilian power model it had so furiously condemned the US and UK for lacking and has initiated its own oil-fuelled escapade. Ultimately France, like the US before it, has fallen victim to its own rhetoric and believes that its national interests are mirror images of EU and international interests and feels vindicated in pursuing violent solutions to, ostensibly, defend international human rights, democracy and the rule of law even when other solutions exist. This is reminiscent of the Bush (jr.) era where political radicalism was married to military adventurism with one fatal difference: it is France’s adventure in North Africa and France is a key member of the EU, a role-model nation in the Francophone, a permanent member of the UNSC, home to the Council of Europe and generally thought of as a progressive member of the international community trying to overcome its colonial legacy.

The resemblance between France and the US, as foreign policy actors, is shocking: both are captivated by their self-generated morality, are drawn to fulfil mission civilisatrice for reasons of national pride and wealth, are instinctively unilateral, (though deceptively use multilateral forums) and both are addicted to sweet hydrocarbons. To gain control of the latter, France and the US have deployed the language and logic of their mission civilisatrice, shrug their shoulders and wonder why large segments of the international community – particularly the global south – distrust (at best) and openly resist their interference and sometime their presence.

As the French-led coalition of the willing (which includes France, the UK, US, Italy and Canada) wages ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn’ against Libya it is shocking to bear witness to the lack of international public dialogue. In fact, too few questions have been asked and too little dissent is apparent. Most commentators have accepted, at face value, that Gaddafi must step down, that the rebels are merely citizen ‘protesters’ seeking to democratise Libya and require protection from the air, that the coalition is morally and legally correct and the only way to secure peace in the South Mediterranean is through force. This must be splayed against the backdrop that none of the ‘rebel’ claims have been adequately verified, that France legitimised the ‘rebel’ leadership without any EU or international consultation and that the entire process; from demonising Gaddafi, clandestine interventions (UK and the Netherlands) right through to the imposition of the No-Fly Zone has been blindingly, and suspiciously fast. Also, the operations’ legality is dubious given that Libya is a sovereign state who declared a cease-fire with the rebels, asked for international observation of the cease-fire; a request that was rejected while the French Air force and the US and UK navies bombarded Libya’s military apparatus; which has itself probably led to numerous casualties.

While this is not meant to defend Gaddafi (he, and his regime are themselves morally repulsive) it is not clear that the motivations behind the conflict are in-sync with European foreign policy values and it is a prime objective of CEJISS to question France’s motivation, the EU’s ‘follow-the-leader’ mentality, and the long(er) term implications of this, the most unnecessary conflict in the post-Cold War period.

Belonging to the international press and the international academic community carries a burden of responsibility to be fair and objective and to act as the conscience for others who may neglect their own responsibilities or manipulate facts to bolster their domestic positions. CEJISS, as a conduit of information and scholarly (peer-reviewed) research is committed to assisting our audience make sense of the unfolding crisis in Libya and invites you to participate in this endeavour with us.

Yours truly,

Mitchell A. Belfer
Editor in Chief
Central European Journal of
International and Security Studies