Thursday, April 7, 2011

French ego/bloodlust

Nicholas Sarkozy fascinates me. He is fascinating because he just can’t keep himself out of the media spotlight.  When Wikileaks “revealed” that he is known for his thin skin and authoritarian leadership style, this was hardly revealing.

My interest in Sarkozy peaked when he made it a point to “resolve” the war between Russia and Georgia in the summer of 2008. At the time, the French held the rotating presidency of the European Council. As is typical for a man who has become known for his egomania, he became the center of attention when a ceasefire was brokered (at the behest of Russia rather than because of the personal charisma of Sarkozy). I thought a peaceful resolution of this conflict (this “resolution” still embitters Georgians) should have been a victory for EU diplomacy, but Sarkozy devoured what credit there was to be had.

History has repeated itself with military intervention in Libya. And the French response under Sarkozy has surprised me.

Sarkozy and David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, were the first to express their interest in the ouster of Moammar Gaddafi (does anyone know how to spell this guy’s name?) and urged the UN Security Council to pass a resolution supporting a no-fly zone.  Sarkozy got his wish and the Security Council authorized the use of force to protect civilians. China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany abstained from the vote, while the other 10 members gave the go-ahead. Sarkozy organized a meeting in Paris, as Gaddafi’s troops neared the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, where there was a symbolic show of support among Western leaders. Turkey was left out.

So, yet again, Sarkozy led the charge in resolving this conflict, this time, however, advocating force over diplomacy. Force just isn’t an option when it comes to influencing Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
The use of force as a means for justice is always a touchy subject, but is one that I can examine in more depth working with the Transatlantic Trends survey at the German Marshall Fund*. Every year the survey asks its respondents (the U.S. and 11 European states) if they agree that war is sometimes necessary to obtain justice. The results affirm some assumptions and provide insight into why states intervened in Libya and what the future of the operation may look like.

Only a minority (17%) of the French public see war as an appropriate means to secure justice. This disdain is held by people across the political spectrum, left right and center. In Germany, on the other hand, who abstained from the Security Council resolution, almost a quarter of its public (24%), and a third (33%) of those who identify with the Right, warrant the use of force.  American and British support for the operation in Libya is not surprising. A majority of the U.S. public (76%), U.S. leaders (86%) and the UK public (61%) agree either strongly or somewhat with the question. The German abstention may stem from their deep rooted aversion towards war and the French support, controlling for the Sarkozy factor, could be derived from their colonial ties to the region.

What does this question say about the future? I can only hope that the recent defections of Gaddafi officials will encourage him to leave the country and a peaceful transition to democracy will take place. If, however, Gaddafi buckles down and gears up for a prolonged conflict, Sarkozy may decide, before impending elections, that his decision to advocate force was imprudent and disconnected from his constituents core beliefs. A splinter in NATO could lead to protracted American and British involvement, since it is their publics that can stomach combat the most.  

However, again I am surprised by a parallel conflict in Cote D’Ivoire. There the French have launched attacks against Luarent Gbago, the country’s (soon to be former) president who has been clinging to power since Alassane Ouattara declared himself the winner of elections held last month. The international community has accepted his claim and France has intervened with the approval of the Security Council. This conflict has been side stepped in the media; I’m sure much to Sarkozy’s dismay.  

Both because of a lack of public support and because of the stereotype of the pacifist Frenchman, constantly rolling over when faced with a military threat, I am amazed. Current events highlight that the French are resolved to use their military to enforce justice, a fact that opinion polls and history have disavowed. An interesting question is whether or not this is a reflection of their president or due to an unseen shift in French public opinion?

Where has the EU been regarding these conflicts? An article in the EU Observer reports that President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy (Pictured above. He is no doubt not as recognizable as Sarkozy) has stated that the EU should take credit for preventing a “blood bath” in Libya. Outside of the EU Observer I have seen little on the Union’s response. The U.S., France, the UK and NATO have received all the attention in Libya. How can a man like Herman Van Rompuy possibly compete with the forceful personalities of Sarkozy or Obama?  This is all too typical of the EU and its Common Foreign and Defense Policy failing to take a prominent role in international affairs.

These recent interventions have not been without their critics.

In Slate, William Saletan posits that the U.S. is only intervening because Europe wishes to. It is pay back for their decade of service in Afghanistan. While this certainly played a role in U.S. decision making, I believe it is not the only reason.  

In his blog for the EU Observer, George Irvin cites many problems with using war as a means for peace. Top among them is the hypocrisy of intervening in Libya and not in countless other places around the world where civilians are endangered daily by tyrannical regimes. To respond to what I believe is a flawed argument, I’m going to evoke a thought experiment posed by Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Eating Animals, at a London School of Economics lecture I heard via podcast: If you consider yourself an honest person and your wife asks you, “do I look fat in this dress?” To which, of course, you respond “no,” but this is a lie, do you then, because you told one lie, go around telling lies the rest of your life? This was intended promote vegetarianism, but can be transposed perfectly to the situation in Libya and other conflict.

Unfortunately, as fallible humans, our beliefs are sometimes inconsistent and we are all hypocritical in one way or another. Just because the U.S. and its European allies haven’t instituted no-fly zones across North Africa, the Middle East, Cote D’Ivoire, Myanmar and a myriad of other conflict regions does not mean that our effort to help the people of Libya overthrow an unbalanced despot or the French support of a popularly elected leader if Cote D’Ivoire is not just.

Whether or not the motives behind Operation Odyssey Dawn were Sarkozy’s efforts to feed his insatiable narcissism or the U.S. repaying Europe for a long and unpopular war in Afghanistan, the end is clear: justice. An end that resonates innately in all people and one, in my opinion, that sometimes warrants the use of force. 


*The views expressed in this post are my own and not those of GMF.