French Foreign
Policy a la George W. Bush (Liberation, France)
"This is a preventative strike designed to prevent new aggressions. That is the theory. ... Is the seizure of power by Islamists really a 'threat to Europe,' according to the formulation of Angela Merkel? If it is, why is France the only one intervening? ... If the rebels are a genuine threat to Europe or to neighboring African countries, they must be combated by all of them, not just the former colonial power. In wanting to impose the good by force, we risk applying a remedy worse than the disease."
French President Francois Hollande with interim Mali President Dioncounda Traore at Bamako Airport, Feb. 2. Hollande was mobbed by Malians chanting 'Thank you, France!'
The military
intervention of France in Mali, a conflict engaged on January 11, raises one
question in particular: what ideology drove the decision to intervene? And is
it a variant of the neoconservatism that served as a justification for previous
wars launched against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya)?
Neoconservatism
is a political doctrine developed in the United States in the aftermath of the
attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite this now commonplace appellation, this
is not a doctrine that revives conservatism. It relies instead on the idea that
one must intervene by force in foreign countries to eradicate evil and impose good,
all in the defense of democratic ideals and human rights. Or, in the words of
former President George W. Bush, to allow liberty to triumph over its enemies,
in politics as in economics.
Neoconservatism is
therefore a moralism and idealism, distinguished from
other geopolitical doctrines like realism, according to which a nation's
foreign policy is dictated by its own interests, without any concern for the
destiny of foreign peoples. To launch a war in defense of one's oil supply (or
uranium) is not in line with neoconservatism. Rather, what is consistent with
this doctrine is bringing the best political system to others. In this way it
is not unlike other forms of messianism, such as colonialism, which is justified by
the superiority of Western civilization; or communism, a regime meant to ensure
the people who adopt it a bright future.
The
justifications provided by Western leaders for their recent military
interventions are not necessarily just causes. These may be based on other
logic - economic, strategic, or domestic. But these justifications allow them
to better "sell" the war to their own populations, and likewise to
others. The unsullied defense of national interest looks like egoism, whereas
altruism is a more gratifying sentiment. Now, popular support in war is
indispensable, for that alone boosts the popularity of leaders: we like to
believe they are motivated by the desire to do good. This explains why the
neoconservative doctrine, which showcases Western countries as an incarnation
of superior values and a rampart against the savagery of others, is so well
received by the political class as well as by columnists and mainstream media.
In France, throughout
the Syrian crisis, we've heard calls for intervention to fight the barbarians, criminals,
and executioners of the Syrian people, and to defend the courageous
revolutionaries (neoconservative authors systematically resort to this Manichean vocabulary).
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The French
intervention in Mali was initially based on a two-part justification. The first
was the express request of governing Malians for France to come and defend them against an external
aggression - against the Islamists that had taken control of the north of the
country and threatened to similarly-seize half of the south. It was a matter of responding
to a call from an ally. That is, of fulfilling our contractual obligations. These are not acts that fall under neoconservatism.
The second was to
prevent the whole of the Sahel from becoming a base for terrorist actions
directed against Europe, and thus, France. This reasoning is based on
self-defense: It is a preventative strike designed to prevent new aggressions.
That is the theory.
In practice, we're
left with this question: Is the seizure of power by Islamists really a "threat
to Europe," according to the formulation of Angela Merkel? If it is, why
is France the only one intervening? At an extraordinary meeting held in
Brussels January 17, Spanish and German foreign ministers asked their French
colleague: what is "real purpose" of your intervention? The French
minister, undoubtedly a little annoyed, replied: "to stop the terrorists."
But he immediately added, "and to destroy the sources of terrorism,"
thus positioning himself under the banner of neoconservatism. Even assuming
that these "sources" can be accurately identified, their elimination
presupposes the control of an immense territory and the reconstruction of
Malian society. That is, the installation of an occupying army for an indefinite
period of time. In this respect, previous episodes of the "war against
terrorism" do not inspire any great optimism.
In the coming
weeks, we will have an answer to our original question. Either the French Army
will settle for preventing the advance of the rebels and weaken them
militarily, or it will engage in a profound transformation of the society in
that country - in order to rid it of the "sources of terrorism." If the
rebels are a genuine threat to Europe or to neighboring African countries, they
must be combated by all of them, not just the former colonial power. In wanting
to impose the good by force, we risk applying a remedy worse than the disease.