www

http://worldmeets.us/images/mali-quagmire_globeandmail.png

Globe & Mail, Canada

[Click Here for More Cartoons]

 

 

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."

 

By Tzvetan Todorov, Philosopher

                                                http://worldmeets.us/images/Tzvetan-Todorov_mug.png

 

Translated By Kate Townsend

 

February 3, 2013

 

France – Liberation – Original Article (French)

French President Francois Hollande with interim Mali President Dioncounda Traore at Bamako Airport, Feb. 2. Hollande was mobbed by Malians chanting 'Thank you, France!'

 

BBC NEWS VIDEO: French president hailed after Timbuktu Islamists ousted, Feb. 2, 00:01:42RealVideo

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.    

 

Like Worldmeets.US on Facebook

 

 

SEE ALSO ON THIS:  

Le Figaro, France: French are Alone in Mali; Allies in Hiding Behind U.S., U.K. Inaction  

Echorouk al-Yawm, Algeria: Hats Off to Algeria for Rejecting U.S. Meddling in Hostage Crisis  

Le Quotidien d’Oran, Algeria: 'Unequivocal Respect' for Palestine's Freedom Fighters  

Echorouk al-Yawm, Algeria: Algeria's Elimination of U.S. and U.K. to Be 'Love Letter' for Gaza  

Le Quotidien d’Oran, Algeria: Shame on Algerian Officials for Payout to U.S. Oil Firm

Le Quotidien d’Oran, Algeria: Why Insulting the Prophet Always 'Pays Off Big'

Il Sole 24 Ore, Italy: Making Sense of the West's Pointless Reliance on War

Le Quotidien d’Oran, Algeria: The 'Brutality of the World', According to Vladimir Putin

 

 

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.

 

CLICK HERE FOR FRENCH VERSION

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted By Worldmeets.US Feb. 3, 2013, 01:45pm