|
François Hollande's foreign policy is likely to differ from
Nicolas Sarkozy's in style and tone but not in substance.
The use of force against the
Syrian violent regime is now on the agenda but no military operation is
likely to be launched without taking into consideration the interests of
China and Russia in the region. The
multilateral approach will probably be Paris' weapon of choice during the
mandate of the newly elected French President.
But a multilateral mistake remains
a mistake. One can see three main reasons for France to stay out of Syria.
Missing: vision, leadership, money
France hasn't had a serious public
debate on foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. There isn't a
decision-making matrix which could help estimating at which point the State
should abstain or should consider going to war. No line in the sand has been
drawn, the principles or goals are unknown - and they are not discussed
during presidential races.
There is a good reason for this: French
voters don't care about foreign policy in general. A poll by Ipsos for Fondapol underlines
that only 36% of the electorate think Hollande can
manage an international, diplomatic or military crisis (61% for the mercurial
Sarkozy). Military adventurism is clearly out of his electoral mandate. Polls
expose that the new President has been elected to tackle domestic issues: the
problematic economic situation, the public debt, unemployment, pensions,
healthcare, etc.
The French electorate is right to
worry about the domestic economic situation: the French State is broke and is
in the middle of a European public debt crisis. It has a €1.7 trillion
public debt which represents 86% of the country's GDP and the country hasn't
seen a balanced budget since the year 1974. It also has the highest public
spending ratio of the Eurozone: 57% of its economic output depends on life
support from the State and 26% of the workforce is civil servants - compared
to 10% in Germany. Yet, no public spending cuts, no labour
reform, and no liberalization is on the table at the moment.
Let me sum up: the French State
has no clear strategy or apparent principles when it comes to foreign policy
and military involvement, the new President wasn’t elected to conduct a
war but to focus on domestic problems and the terminally indebted State
really doesn’t have a cent to finance a war.
How to lose a war
Even if the French State could
think, lead and finance a war against the Syrian regime, military experiences
from major players – among them the United States – in the
foreign affairs field expose that a military victory in the region is
difficult to obtain and that it won’t necessarily lead to a stable
country.
Syria is a very complex country. The opposition to the regime is fragmented between the National
Coordination Committee (NCC) which wants to share the power with the current
regime, the exile-based Syrian National Council (SNC) that rejects any
compromise with it, the disorganized Free Syrian Army (FSA) which seems to
cooperate with the SNC, the Muslim Brotherhood that would prefer Turkey to
intervene, the Syrian Kurds who reject this option, etc. The political loyalty of the population goes to different actors based
on their different religion, sect, ethnicity and clan.
Because of the absence of
traditional building blocks of liberal democracy in the
country, both in the regime and its opposition, the most promising paths
to new forms of unity and order are illiberal: religious rule, war, or new
autocrats.
France's assistance to rebels
would vindicate Assad’s narrative that the revolt is a conspiracy of
outside forces, including the United States, Israel, and the Gulf states. It
could also stir Sunni elites in Damascus to rally around Assad, strengthening
his support, rather than weakening it.
France efforts to help the rebels
or to bomb the regime's forces will amount to contributing to a worsening
situation without a means of reaching a peaceful end state.
A military intervention in a
foreign country always triggers a cascade of unintended consequences and the
threat of a blow-back against civilian population in Syria and
France is real.
Beside the fact that another
military operation would mean a au
revoir to any hope of budgetary rigour,
foreign wars are always a good way for national governments to trample their
Constitution and the civil liberties of their citizens.
Some of the recent American foreign
interventions have turned out very badly, costing lives, exploding the
budget, undermining their moral authority and failing to achieve desired
goals. Haven't there been enough recent failures in American foreign policy
that we ought to try to make our own?
Paris should recognize the limits
of its authority and resources and stop
starting unnecessary wars - like in Syria.
|
