Before the portcullis raises!
There are a thousand excellent reasons not to go into Syria:
1. It has not been established that the decision to use chemical weapons was made at the highest level of the Syrian leadership.
2. It has not been established (the opposite appears to be the case) that opposition forces have not made use of chemical weapons also.
3. Other countries have violated the 1925 Protocol without incurring the wrath of the international community.
4. The purpose of war not being to overthrow the Syrian regime, it is not clearly defined: it can be expected that the Syrian leaders will protect the people and the things that are dear to them.
5. Not to follow the Security Council’s decision is a dangerous precedent, especially for a country like France, whose status, so fragile, as a permanent member should encourage her more than any others, to accord the role of this decision-making body due importance.
6. If the strikes result in a heavy toll of civilian deaths, what ethical justification is available to support this?
7. If the strikes result in the fall of the regime, what secular and democratic government is ready to succeed it?
All these unanswered questions do not explain either the UK Government’s refusal (delaying sanction of the mad venture of Tony Blair in Iraq, which the British have never criticized) nor the American debate (so deeply rooted in the tradition of a constitution made to limit at all costs the power of the executive).
In all cases, they explain that public opinion, especially French public opinion, is worried and resistant. Everyone knew the purposes of war in Mali and Libya. And could endorse them. Here, few people understand it. Few leaders explain it.
France therefore finds herself cornered between a pathetic retreat and a misunderstood offensive. Be that as it may. And despite the so powerful arguments that I just mentioned, I am in favor of France’s involvement in such an operation, after a debate in the Parliament.
And the opposition, I think, is wrong to expect a natural fear in the face of any conflict. It should weigh the immense importance of what is at stake here. If we give free rein to the use of chemical weapons without reacting, particularly against civilian populations, in a civil war, it would be impossible to oppose their use in all kinds of conflicts.
Yet, these weapons are extremely easy to manufacture. And as easy to use. Any dictator will therefore be able to use them with impunity against his own people or against a neighbouring country.
Then, a similar reasoning can be applied to nuclear weapons, then to bacteriological, biological, genetic and nanotechnological weapons. They are no longer science fiction. They exist, they are terrifying, and are controlled only by the sense of prohibition. If this sense of prohibition disappears, if the portcullis is lifted, then, it will be hell before us. It is the very existence of humanity that will be threatened. It is ridiculous, for example, to be hostile to GMOs and indulgent with chemical weapons.
In politics, there is often but one choice between two bad solutions. The least damaging solution is always the one which can be explained to future generations. This is called the raison d’Etat. For men bearing the same name.
Photo: a street in Damascus, Anton_Ivanov/Shutterstock.com
Broadcast Media Professional
10 年Since George Bush and Tony Blair accused Iraq of wepons of mass distruction none were found I have never been to any of those Countrys so goverments go on speculation than facts and some goverment cuts so to reduce its forces going to war neuclier is dammaging for ordinary without wepons as Chynoble another of the many Countrys I have never visited and more recent Japan another of the many Countrys I have not visitedd shows why it should never be used
Legal & Institutional Advisor
11 年a wise man provides wise judgments.
Senior Principal, Risk Advisory at Gartner
11 年Your argument seems to be separated into three basic concepts. First, there are multiple reasons for non-intervention in Syria. Second, despite the acknowledgement of said reasons, you still support intervention, after a debate in parliament. Third, that the use of chemical weapons may increase under the dictators of the world, and the efforts to prohibit these types of weapons, diminished. Jacques Attali your points are valid, logical, and easy to understand, but at the same time weakened by your willingness to support intervention solely on the basis of the parliamentary process. You make no mention of the actual content of such parliamentary hearing, and whether or not the debate itself would serve as basis for your support or objections. Your essay implies that the uncertainties surrounding the use of chemical weapons are enough to pause and reconsider whether or not we can support intervention on the basis of morality alone. You stated that you are in favor of "such an operation", but what course of action would you support if proven that both parties have participated, equally, in acts against humanity?
South Australia Department for Child Protection - Business Support Officer
11 年well, only can add another one, 1001, We need peace!
Contemporary Korean Artists Gallerist at Artskoco , Luxembourg
11 年How about talking to the guys who have some leverage on Bashar, Russia and Iran? before striking? Jacques , I dont follow your logic, the reasons not to strike are valid, the outcome sought by the strike is unclear, the colateral damage is certain. the only use to threaten the strike was to get Putin to offer what he just did which may allow Obama and Hollande to pull back and save face. And by the way the people we fought in Mali are largely the same fighting in Irak against Bashar, AlQaida, armed by our dear friend Qatar. Your recommendation sounds like Louis XV reversing alliance to help Austria during the 7 year war. France lost canada as a result. Will striking Bashar, when it seems the rebels used the chems, achieve any of the grand objective you claim to defend? very doubtful. working with Russia and Iran would achieve far more, i believe.