FRANCE GETS COLD FEET FOR PEACEKEEPER ROLE
August 23, 2006 (The Republican) - France now says it won't commit more troops until the United Nations designates a leader, defines the mission and establishes the rules of engagement. This may explain why so few countries have pledged troops. If France, one of the main sponsors of the resolution, doesn't think its own resolution is a good game plan, than why should they put their troops in harm's way?
WASHINGTON August 23, 2006 (The Australian) - US President George W. Bush has called for the urgent deployment of international troops to southern Lebanon to uphold the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, hinting at the deep frustration in Washington over France's decision to commit only 200 troops as Italy put its hand up to lead the force.
INACTION IMPERILS CEASE-FIRE, UN SAYS
Tepid Backing Of Border Force Leaves A Void
UNITED NATIONS August 23, 2006 (Boston Globe) - UN efforts to expand the current force of 2,000 peacekeepers in Lebanon to 15,000 after the 34-day war have foundered since France dramatically scaled back its pledge last week to 200 soldiers, US and UN officials said. France had been widely expected to lead the mission and send several thousand soldiers.
France sets the stage for the dramatic moment when -- Jack speaks!
PROCHE-ORIENT : INTERVENTION TELEVISEE
DU PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE
[Near-East: Televised Statement By The President Of The Republic]
PALAIS DE ÉLYSÉE, Paris le jeudi 24 août 2006
Mes chers compatriotes,...
Resolution 1701, unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council at France's initiative, made possible a ceasefire, which is as yet fragile. This Resolution affirms Israel's right to security and Lebanon's right to exercise full sovereignty over the whole of its territory. [Much like the unenforced UNSCR 1559 in force since 2004] This Resolution also includes a decision to reinforce the United Nations force, UNIFIL, to monitor the cessation of hostilities and to support the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south of the country as the Israelis withdraw.
It was necessary to respond to the emergency, but also to set the stage for a safe and effective operation. It was my responsibility to obtain a number of guarantees from the parties to the conflict and from the United Nations.
We have received assurances from Lebanon and Israel that our force will be in a position to fulfil its mission on the ground.
I also asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations to ensure that the force would operate under optimum conditions of effectiveness and security. We have obtained the necessary clarifications from the Untied Nations: regarding the chain of command, which must be simple, coherent and responsive; and the rules of engagement, which must ensure freedom of movement for the force and its ability to take action if faced with hostile situations.
So far, other than the chain of command, nothing here that is not covered in the UNSCR itself and no assurances beyond those already obtained pursuant to the resolution's passage. The French were always assumed to be the big dog, so the chain of command was a point for French advisement. Even with standing forces there is always an organizational and planning phase before deployment. To organize and plan though it helps to know the resources at hand, oh, like how many French troops will comprise the "spine" of the force.
This force will be put in place. But it must be based on a fair distribution of contingents. I approached my counterparts to convince them fully to take part. Several European partners will do so, as will major Moslem countries in Asia. And I hope that other permanent members of the Security Council will also make a commitment to participate on the ground.Today, the conditions put forward by France having been met, I have decided to respond favourably to the requests made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Lebanese and Israeli governments.
Two additional battalions will extend our UNIFIL contingent on the ground. 2,000 French soldiers will thus be deployed as blue helmets in Lebanon. [That is an additional 1,600 troops on top of a previous promise (200) and French troops currently in the field (200 UNIFIL).] France is prepared, if the United Nations so wishes, to continue to assume command of the force. We will review these arrangements within six months in light of the changing situation.
Why couldn't Jack have said this on August 11? Better yet, why weren't France's gauzy clarifications clarified when France was writing the resolution?
...Mes chers compatriotes,
Attentive to the conditions in which our soldiers will be engaged and determined that France should take an active part in serving peace and stability, I believe at this time that the French soldiers can be deployed effectively. In this way, in a situation which everyone knows to be difficult, France will fully shoulder its responsibilities in Lebanon. ... And I once again call on the international community as a whole to take part in this effort, which is indispensable for building peace in Lebanon and in the Near East.
That's it. Was it good for you?
Notice anything missing? Well, the one thing we would've liked clarified is who will be disarming Hizballah as required by UNSCR 1559, which is recalled in UNSCR 1701? Not the Lebanese. And not M. Douste-Blazy. Jack might recall that Israel was in Lebanon doing that very thing -- the UN's heavy lifting. We do not need any clarification on who's arming Hizballah (and this). So Jack will send 2,000 French troops to Lebanon as what? Boucliers humains for Hizballah? A little clarification, please.
PFFT (What is this?): Snow job 5 | Convincing snow job 0 | Rayonnement français ¾
