Alain Juppe, a former defense minister himself, dislikes Gates, who in early June criticized the unreliability of America’s European partners in military matters. But Juppe’s statements in Moscow show that he is not unlike his American colleague, especially with respect to spreading democracy.
Last week I had a chance to hear Alain Juppe talk about his concerns and dreams. Speaking at the plenary meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club held at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, the French foreign minister, who has always been considered an intellectual, showed a new side of himself. He may still speak like a scholar, but his statements reveal that he has become one of the new European hawks.
After the meeting, I felt like I had heard all of this before in the news briefing by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who resigned last week. Gates spoke about spreading democracy, the fight against terror, and the U.S. mission to protect defenseless and oppressed people.
Alain Juppe, a former defense minister himself, dislikes Gates, who in early June criticized the unreliability of America’s European partners in military matters. But Juppe’s statements in Moscow show that he is not unlike his American colleague, especially with respect to spreading democracy.
He began by urging Russia to “interpret the surge of spirit and democracy in the Arab countries in a more coordinated manner.” Does this mean Russia should forget about the region’s shattered stability and help everyone who is dissatisfied with their government?
Juppe explained why Europe needs such a policy. He said: “We believed for too long that authoritarian regimes are the best protection against the spread of terrorism. We turned a blind eye to abuses for too long.”
Just replace “authoritarian regimes” with the name of an Arab leader and it sounds like a verdict. And what of international law and the notion of sovereignty?
Juppe, who represents a highly influential French lobby in Europe, does not think there is any discrepancy. The only question for him is which legal clause to use to justify one’s actions. Juppe’s favorite justification is that “the international community is responsible for protecting civilians.” He thinks this is enough to justify the bombing of Libya.
Regarding Libya, Juppe said that every government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity. “If a government fails to do so, the international community should assume that function. This is exactly what we are doing in Libya,” the minister said, as quoted by RIA Novosti.
He diplomatically avoided saying who would evaluate the international community’s actions later. But his idea is clear anyway, because the “assessment function” is being transferred from Washington to Europe, whose hawks will explain to the “guilty” regimes what will happen to them if they refuse to follow Europe’s orders.
He said that Europe cannot “close their eyes to abuses” in Syria and Libya, that they “have proposed a damning resolution” and think that “the mission launched to protect civilians is not over.”
But who has given Europe, in particular France, the right to decide what to open its eyes to in a foreign country that is not an EU member? This question does not worry Juppe, who is sure that European values are universal and that it is Europe’s mission to spread them to its eastern and southern neighbors.
International laws and resolutions can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Although UN Security Council Resolution 1973 expressly prohibits the supply of arms and military personnel to the warring sides in Libya, last week France airlifted containers with light arms to Gaddafi opponents. Why has France violated the UN resolution, and will it be held accountable?
We have not violated the resolution and there is nothing to punish France for, Juppe claims. The resolution calls for taking “all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,” which can be interpreted as the right to supply arms. This is how the French foreign minister explained his country’s actions at a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.
Juppe cited cases when civilians died because the UN Security Council failed to adopt a coordinated decision. Millions were killed in a civil war in Rwanda while the Security Council failed to act. Eight thousand Muslims were killed by ethnic Serbs in Srebrenica.
Europeans are trying to convince the international community that they do, in fact, have strategic objectives and the resolve to achieve them. This is why Juppe recalled that it was France and Britain, not the United States, who had initiated the military operation in Libya. Europe does not understand Gates’ claim that the NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for frontline combat, Juppe said.
Such comments about international law and Europe’s moral responsibility call into question Juppe’s other, outwardly peaceful statements about the European missile shield and the European concept of a common security space from Brest to Vladivostok. Moreover, the French foreign minister has admitted that the latter project is nothing more than a concept.
Juppe had nothing to say about why Europe got involved in the missile shield debate with Russia if there is no missile threat to Europe. Meanwhile, the debate has seriously damaged the dialogue between Moscow and Brussels, fostering mutual mistrust in the defense, energy and trade fields.
“I don’t think EU-Russian relations are stagnating,” Juppe said several times, but failed to provide proof that the old agenda has been expanded in any way. Not surprisingly, the foreign minister concluded by offering up this cliché: “Europe is Russia’s main neighbor.”
