The objective is justified but… It is natural that there are moments of concern. This column is certainly not going to change its pro-Community orientation because the unjust criticism levelled against European construction is such that my first concern for a long time to come will be to iron out any misunderstandings and correct the lies. Now we have an initiative in which several Community countries are participating but which for me provokes a number of concerns and difficulties. I am referring to the current operation in Libya, not to the initiative in itself but to its objectives: how can one not support protecting the people? To understand this question, we only need to re-read the declarations made by Mr Gaddafi, who announced “a bloodbath”, that he intended to “exterminate the cockroaches house by house” and that he would pursue this task “mercilessly”. The international authorisation for intervention and the mobilisation of the forces required were not only justified but also indispensable.
Neo-colonialist operation? What, therefore, do I consider the problem? There are two things that need to be pointed out. The first thing requiring clarification is that everything has evolved in a way that makes the conflict appear like a conflict between the Americans and Europeans on one side and the Arabs and black Africans on the other (we know that Colonel Gaddafi has always refused to participate in the so-called Union for the Mediterranean, sought by France). Gaddafi is in favour of the African Union, for which he has always provided a lot of funding. It is true that the Arab League initially supported the UN resolution authorising action, which was hugely important, but since then it has backtracked. The support remaining from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will not change this situation. Therefore, the coast is clear for those who want to portray current action as a new colonialist operation. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mentioned, and President Obama is obliged to give his support. Exploitation of the situation in this sense is already a reality and there is even a religious aspect to it because Colonel Gaddafi has talked of Crusader aggression saying that “it is nothing but a colonialist crusade, which risks triggering even bigger crusades”. The German foreign affairs minister saw which way the wind was blowing and explicitly denounced the danger of creating the impression that this was a clash between the West and the Arab world or, in his own words, “a Christian crusade against the Muslim people”. The fact that large non-EU countries like Russia, Brazil and India etc abstained, further reinforces this impression.
What is more, the absence of a common European position will once again be presented as proof that the EU does not function as a whole, although it has never been granted real foreign policy powers (even if the Lisbon Treaty includes the possibility of providing it with these powers).
All about oil? The second unpleasant thing to be pointed out involves the plethora of references and implications based on the underlying economic considerations of the affair. Libyan oil is endlessly mentioned in the different analyses and commentaries, as if the problems of war and peace were nothing other than a cover for oil interests! Obviously, Libyan gas and petrol exist and Colonel Gaddafi has already declared that he will use different export routes. At some time or another, this issue will indeed need to be discussed. Nonetheless, I refuse to believe that this aspect is the crucial motivation for the Libyan operation and that it influences the current line put forward by Mr Sarkozy and other protagonists. I prefer to believe the motivation given by the French minister for foreign affairs in Brussels: “If we had not decided on what has been decided, Benghazi would now be a bloodbath”.
Let's not forget Tunisia and Egypt. My concerns are not limited to the Libyan affair. The situation and the positions taken by Tunisia and Egypt, in other words the two countries that have broadly succeeded with their respective developments, also require a certain amount of clarification. Young Tunisians have to understand that if their country has won freedom and democracy, they cannot travel illegally to Europe because the right of asylum only exists for those who are persecuted in their home countries or are in danger of being persecuted. It is also normal that they help towards creating progress in their countries, instead of leaving women and children, to live illegally in France. If the route adopted by the illegal immigrants is a response to other causes and objectives, the EU will have to watch out. In Egypt, the people have conferred on the military the task of preparing the new constitution and the forthcoming elections. Nothing else needs to be said other than to point out that the Egyptian army is almost totally funded by the US and that the condition for this funding is essentially based on the agreement between Egypt and Israel. Any possible repudiation of this agreement would radically change the situation.
It is in these terms that I bring my exercise of clarification to a close and I apologise to anyone that I may have offended by it. (F.R./transl.fl)