French Analyst Warns of Dangers of Intervening in Syria with US Alone

The human cost of the civil war in Syria and the use of chemical weapons place the question of a military intervention to sanction the Bashir al-Assad regime at the heart of the debate.  The latter has transcended the typical clash between unconditional supporters of external military interventions and those who reject them on principle.  Of course, those who spoke out for the war in Iraq in 2003 on the grounds of the existence of weapons of mass destruction are ill placed to call for an intervention in Syria.  They do a disservice to the cause that they claim to serve.  But it is interesting to note that Western figures that are difficult to pigeonhole are in favor of a military intervention – from Alain Juppe [former prime minister] to Hubert Vedrine [former foreign minister], via Rony Brauman [founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres], Noel Mamere [Greens leader], and even Jean-Pierre Filiu [Middle East specialist]…  It is a complex question and it involves many parameters, ranging from the future of Syria and the Near East to the collective security system, and as far as France is concerned the best position to adopt. 

There are strong arguments in favor of an intervention.  The 100,000 dead make the war in Syria one of the conflicts in which civilians have paid the highest price in recent times.  The use of chemical weapons violates one of the most universal conventions, and one of the most widely accepted rules.  To do nothing, if it is proven that they were used, would be perceived as an encouragement to do the same again.  The aim of the strikes is not to overthrow Bashir al-Asad but to send him a message and to weaken his military resources.  They will also indirectly help the armed opposition.  By adopting a leading stance in this connection France would distinguish itself and take up a moral leadership on the world level.  Britain's default would also grant it leadership at the European level.  The relative isolation of the states that advocate an intervention would grant it compensation and credibility in terms of its capacity to decide and to act 

Furthermore, these countries have gone too far along the path of the threat of intervention, whatever people may think.  If they were to backtrack, they would lose a great deal in terms of credibility. 

Last, it would be futile to turn to the United Nations, in view of Russia's obstruction, which seems unshakeable in the short and medium term.  The Syrians have no more time to await a change of position on Moscow's part.  An intervention would lack legality but it would be legitimate in order to response to the crimes against humanity. 

There are other arguments in favor of the utmost caution.  Though there was an intervention in Kosovo without the Security Council's go-ahead, there was unanimity among the NATO countries, which all participated in the conflict from the first say to the last.  This is not the situation now.  Russia's veto is to a large extent linked to the change of course in the military operation in Libya, where they had agreed to implement the responsibility to protect and where they were confronted with a fait accompli with the regime change.  Beyond the situation in Syria, it is the future of the United Nations and the Security Council -- in France's interest, as a permanent member -- that must be strengthened, not weakened.  An intervention would grant a short-term benefit in Syria, but major drawbacks in the long term.  With regard to collective security, what will happen after the strikes?  Is there not a danger of intensifying Al-Asad's repression and of being dragged into a hornets' nest ourselves? 

But can we engage in an almost exclusively Franco-American operation, which would, rightly or wrongly, be perceived in terms of France's falling into line with the United States, accompanied by isolation within Europe?  Our prestige among the emerging countries would emerge weakened. 

Since we would be unable to use the argument of legality, we need to strengthen that of legitimacy and to provide indisputable proof both to the leaders and to the public that Bashir al-Asad used chemical weapons.  Otherwise there will always be suspicions and conspiracy theories will flourish. 

And above all, in parallel with the situation in Syria, we must take up once more the task of the future of collective security with the Russians and the Chinese.  We cannot hope to form a "league of democracies" that will make world order prevail.  It is indeed with the countries that exert influence on the world scene but that are different from us, with which we have differences of conception, that we must ponder establishing common red lines.  It is wrong to say that the Russians and the Chinese are systematically obstructive and never vote with us.  They, too, whatever their interests, are in one way or another subject to the verdict of public opinion.  Not Western, but worldwide.

Le Figaro