This is a quote from a WaPo article linked at ThreatsWatch.
Dealing a blow to a U.S.-backed strategy for Lebanon, France has refused to participate in a meeting of nations that could send troops to help monitor a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, even though it may join - and possibly even lead - such a force.
The French refusal to take part in the meeting, set to take place at the U.N. on Thursday, reflects a wide divergence in views between Washington and Paris about how to impose a lasting peace after three weeks of war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Now, is France just in a snit because the US won't support their screech for an immediate cease-fire? I'm not certain why they would assume that Israel should stand down and wait for the iinternational community to provide forces to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Hezbollah for the most part hasn't even been a topic of the discussions. They certainly haven't been part of the stated parties who will be required to agree to the cease-fire. If Israel goes into a cease-fire, can anyone honestly believe that Hezbollah will stop launching missiles and rockets into Israel?France doesn't even want to talk about sending peacekeepers until fighting halts and the U.N. Security Council agrees to a wider framework for lasting peace.
Commentary from Steve at ThreatsWatch:
First, characterizing this development as a "blow to a U.S.-backed strategy" is not entirely accurate. As President Bush and his administration has made clear, Israel should be allowed to ensure Hizballah is no longer a threat. Surely the unspoken thinking is, more to the point, that Israel should be allowed to break Hizballah.If France wants to be a player in this event, you'd think boycotting would be the wrong method of moving forward. Doesn't this strike you as further evidence that France really is incapable of being a major world entity when it has a tantrum when the UNSC doesn't want to give them sole voice?France's boycott of the meeting underscores (on a rhetorical level) a US/Israeli desire to see a ceasefire only after the IDF has at least reduced Hizballah to a non-threat to Israeli cities.
However, boycotting the meeting in effect is equal to abstaining from any vote that may still proceed rather than vetoing it, which leaves the UN plan on the table, at least officially.
Yet, with French troops expected to serve as the backbone of any international force that would be constituted for insertion into southern Lebanon apparently no longer on the table in the current timeframe, any eventual passage would be hollow, even by UN standards.
3 comments:
It's certainly further evidence that France doesn't learn from history. The old Soviet Union boycotted a meeting once... The vote was on sending troops to the Korean peninsula. They never missed another vote. When you consider that war ended in a UN brokered cease fire that is still in effect, rather than an acutal peace, maybe this is a good thing.
I think the important question has not been asked:
Who gives a rat's ass what France thinks about ANYTHING?
Just my opinion.
Who Cares?
Well Obviously I do, because it gives me another reason to show my disdain for their complete lack of spine.
Otherwise, it shows the bend that the Europeans tend to take when they make moral judgements on other countries military defenses, and show just how hypocritical they can be when they have to defend themselves.
Post a Comment