Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
France uneasy about mandate
By Alasdair Sandford
BBC News, Paris
The war in Lebanon has given France the chance to shine again on the world stage.
Many see the French as natural mediators because of the strong historical ties between the two countries.
France's role in helping to negotiate the UN resolution allowed it to continue mending its relations with the US after the past divisions over Iraq.
President Jacques Chirac was able to deflect attention from domestic problems by focussing on the conflict in his traditional Bastille Day interview.
His Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, flew to Beirut to show solidarity with the Lebanese people and French evacuees.
Last week France sent a ship packed with relief supplies bound for Lebanon.
The good publicity helped both president and prime minister's opinion poll ratings rise by 5%. But the next stage may prove to be a far tougher test.
Implications
French troops have been called upon to form the backbone of the strengthened UN force in southern Lebanon.
Speaking in Beirut, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said France was ready to participate as long as the Lebanese army was deployed in southern Lebanon beforehand.
A survey for the newspaper La Croix found that seven French people out of ten supported the deployment of an international force. However only a small majority - 53% - were in favour of the French military getting involved.
"If it's for peace, I'd have no problem with France intervening," said Estenio, 45, an electrician in Paris.
"France has always been a great power - if she can offer something positive so as to stabilise the region, then that's good."
The poll for La Croix suggested relatively strong backing for a French troop deployment among young people.
But some are afraid of negative consequences back in France.
"I've seen what's been happening in England with terrorism threats because of the engagements of its army," said Ozlem, a 24-year-old estate agent.
"I don't want the same here. Having a French army over there would create tensions with other countries."
Memories of 1983
French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie voiced concern about deploying troops without clearly defined goals.
"France wants the mission's rules of engagement to be clear and it to have real means," she told French TV.
"Sadly, all too often, the United Nations forces don't have the power that they asked for."
The main political parties share such reservations.
Jacques Myard, an MP in France's governing UMP party and a member of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told the BBC the last UN resolution did not make it clear how France can act.
"I know that a lot of military, high-ranking officials in France are reluctant if this mandate is not very precise," he said.When has a UN mandate ever been precise?
The opposition socialists have also warned that "extreme vigilance" is needed, saying the UN resolution does nothing to address the conditions necessary for a political agreement that would guarantee the security of peacekeeping forces.
Above all, France wants to avoid a situation where its own soldiers find themselves having to disarm Hezbollah fighters.
In 1983, 58 French parachutists were killed in Beirut when the building in which they were staying was blown up. They too had been part of a multinational peacekeeping force.
France has been trying to obtain guarantees from the Lebanese government, Hezbollah and Israel. It does not want its troops to be powerless observers.
But nor does it want to get dragged into taking part in a dangerous and potentially disastrous conflict.
This is just a "quagmire" waiting to happen.
Now Euro countries will "occupy" more Arab land, and they themselves will become targets even more so than now. Their troops will be targeted in Lebanon and more attacks to come on the Euro countries themselves.
Do we learn nothing from history? :huh:
I still dont understand what the hell the purpose of the force is. Tell me, how can you disarm terrorists without using force, and with them not fighting back?
I predict either A) no disarming will happen. Or B) They actually do attempt to "disarm" them and find out they have to fight Hezbollah.
Damn, it's been awhile .....
SCREW FRANCE !!! I would dearly love to see Hezbollah turn on them.
From what I can gather, the Lebanese have said if Hizbollah just will not flaunt their weapons, attempt to 'hide' them in their safe places, the Lebanese forces will peek and leave.
The UN forces are moving towards, 'we won't disarm Hizbollah, that's for the Lebanese...' Israel will eventually have to move back, as the UN once again proves itself the organization of letter writers; corruption; some success at humanitarian relief, with other people's money. Like the previous battle, with attendant distruction, the cease fire is worthless.
A survey for the newspaper La Croix found that seven French people out of ten supported the deployment of an international force. However only a small majority - 53% - were in favour of the French military getting involved.
I'm honestly surprised that the UN is doing something against Hezbollah. I am utterly surprised. I figured for sure there would be fingers pointed at Israel.
I'm honestly surprised that the UN is doing something against Hezbollah. I am utterly surprised. I figured for sure there would be fingers pointed at Israel.
In fact, Alliot-Marie wants that the UN mandate allow the bleu helemt to act. Not to be only target or to see people killing each other without the permission to act against it (like in Rwanda, where the soldiers were unable to stop the massacres... the only things they could do was shooting on the dogs, it's why the movie about it is called "shooting dogs").
This claim is logical. Wihtout a good mandate, the blue helmets will be useless.
In fact, Alliot-Marie wants that the UN mandate allow the bleu helemt to act. Not to be only target or to see people killing each other without the permission to act against it (like in Rwanda, where the soldiers were unable to stop the massacres... the only things they could do was shooting on the dogs, it's why the movie about it is called "shooting dogs").
This claim is logical. Wihtout a good mandate, the blue helmets will be useless.
In fact, Alliot-Marie wants that the UN mandate allow the bleu helemt to act. Not to be only target or to see people killing each other without the permission to act against it (like in Rwanda, where the soldiers were unable to stop the massacres... the only things they could do was shooting on the dogs, it's why the movie about it is called "shooting dogs").
This claim is logical. Wihtout a good mandate, the blue helmets will be useless.
actually this is NOT funny at all. European press warns French troop offer weakens UN force in Lebanon
Fri Aug 18, 7:52 AM ET
France faced criticism in the European press for not offering more troops for southern Lebanon, which was seen as jeopardizing the UN force's difficult task of imposing peace.
"France has relaxed the pressure at a vital moment," The Times of London said, accusing Paris in an editorial of backing down from earlier indications that it was ready to play the leading role in the enlarged UN force.
"For France to have retreated from a key role to the realm of 'symbolic' gestures 'symbolises' only one thing: a French loss of nerve,"it said Friday after having previously praised French efforts to find a solution to the crisis.
Despite expectations that France would provide the bulk of a planned 15,000 strong UN force, Paris said Thursday it would send 200 troops to reinforce the UN mission in Lebanon.
While it said France was prepared to command the enlarged force, it also called for safety guarantees for its soliders before making further commitments.
The enlarged peacekeeping force is the keystone in UN Resolution 1701, which outlines the ceasefire and a deployment of Lebanese and international troops to the south of the country to fill the vacuum left by withdrawing Israeli units.
Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita said: "France made a huge diplomatic effort so that resolution 1701 could be voted. Now it's France that is holding up the application of this resolution."
It said that "Paris does not want its soldiers to run the risk of being caught in the crossfire, with Hezbollah militants on one side and the Israeli army on the other".
Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said France had discovered "that it was afraid" while La Stampa said that Paris and Rome "fear another Bosnia".Right, when they had to get the US involved, once again, in Europe.
Many potential contributors to the force, including France, have expressed concern over the role their soldiers will play and have sought assurances from the United Nations and Lebanon on the conditions of the deployment.
Defending the government's decision, leftwing French newspaper Liberation said France was right to demand a clearer mandate before sending more troops. Probably more along the lines of a Chapter 7, which is what the US and Israel were saying was necessary.
"When a country such as France Time out! What the f does that mean? It's ok for other countries soldiers to be slaughtered? Just not French or maybe Italians? Oh, but they jump up and down on their superiority. is to commit thousands of men for years to a situation that has everything in place to become a quagmire, it's better to have a clear mission. Chirac is in his right to demand a minimum of ambiguities," it said.
In a similar vein, conservative French newspaper Le Figaro said:"This is a highly dangerous mission. If France volunteered to lead it's because it's an opportunity to make a comeback in the Middle East, where (France) has been sidelined by American unilateralism. It's all the US, if NOT for them, we would appear, (not have to prove), significance.Nice jab at some Fiji soldiers that would have to cover your guys back, IF you ever went to Lebanon, which appears less and less likely. Mind you, it was Chirac and his politicos that so badly used this UN deal, to appear so much more 'diplomatic' than the US. Seriously, they are without shame.
"However, the rest of the world cannot step aside and leave France holding the hot potato alone with a help from a few Europeans and the inevitable blue helmets from Fiji."
But Spanish newspaper El Mundo warned that caution could cost the force its effectiveness.
"The reticence shown by France to provide the majority of the 15,000 blue helmets could slow the deployment", it said.
While taking a broader European view, Spanish newspaper El Pais echoed a similar warning, saying that "European countries' doubts about the complexity and the risk of the UN mission in southern Lebanon endanger the deployment of the 15,000 troops."
