Thursday 7 April 2011 17.43 BST
- Article history
The ghost of France as "the gendarme of Africa" is back. It only took a military intervention in Libya alongside a dozen allies, and another in Ivory Coast urged by the UN, to see, springing up in the Anglophone media, unsavoury remarks about France's involvement.
For the last few days, we have read almost everywhere sibylline sentences such as, in the Guardian: "The French troops, part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Ivory Coast, appear not to have targeted the compound itself, but the operation is likely to further raise concerns over France's intervention in its former colony." Or this: "French forces take part in three different wars for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic …"
It does sound a little dramatic. As if France, suddenly a warmongering nation, was fighting on three fronts, unilaterally.
There is war and there is concerted military action under mandates of international organisations. Am I just playing with words? Isn't military action another euphemism for war? It all depends on the circumstances. French forces are engaged in Afghanistan under Nato command; in Libya with a UN mandate and under both the Nato umbrella and a political council made of members from within and outside Nato; and finally, in Ivory Coast with another UN mandate.
Afghanistan aside, the Libyan and Ivory Coast operations are straightforward, at least politically, and supported by international opinion. They aim to protect civil populations from dysfunctional regimes gone mad. Why should France's intervention raise concern then? For two reasons.
Nicolas Sarkozy's antagonistic and hyperbolic personality has had many observers ask why, after having left France totally mute about Tunisia and Egypt, he would suddenly and so vehemently spearhead the international aid to Libyan rebels. As Julian Borger and Kim Willsher pointed out in the Guardian, his actions could have as much to do with trying to restore his standing in France as it has with actually helping insurgents. In fact, he did the right thing for the wrong reason and such an attitude always leaves a bitter taste and a trail of suspicion.
The fact that those military interventions are taking place in Africa has also had many observers reach for some ready-made commentary about France and colonialism. Besides, nobody forgets that French forces are accused of having taken a more or less passive part in the genocide of the Tutsi population in Rwanda in the 1990s.
After Rwanda, Sarkozy said he would significantly reduce French military presence in Africa with a focus on training and co-operation. In 2008, Sarkozy's government announced it was planning the closure of military bases in Senegal. Today, France has military bases left in Djibouti, Gabon, and the islands of Reunion and Mayotte. It also has contingents under UN command in Ivory Coast, Chad and Central African Republic. Those have been deployed in the last few days in Ivory Coast, with now 1,650 French soldiers headed by General Palasset.
This week's talk of France trying to restore Françafrique is perhaps a little premature if not off the mark. We could of course try to be controversial like the investigative journalist Pierre Péan who, in his recent book, Carnages, accused the US, Britain and Israel of manoeuvring in the Great Lakes region of Africa, trying among other things to stifle French influence there. But we won't go there.
It might be best to judge the facts without too much historical prejudice. For the most impartial information on the French military, go and check out Jean-Dominique Merchet's blog, Secret défense, and form your own opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment