What to remember from the debate in the National Assembly on the strikes in Syria

What to remember from the debate in the National Assembly on the strikes in Syria

Opposition MPs echoed the many criticisms heard during the weekend, denouncing an intervention “outside international legal framework”.

No union has welded French parliamentarians about joint strikes in Syria of the la France , of UK and the United States, Saturday, April 14. In two proceedings Simultaneously – and without a vote – in the National Assembly and the Senate on Monday, the two hemicycles echoed the many criticisms heard during the weekend faced with representatives of the majority and the government, who took the military action.
In the National Assembly, in the direct line of the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe, defended, in a tense atmosphere, an intervention “Justified” and “Carefully proportioned” designed for “Avoid any escalation” . “We did not go to war against Syria or Bashar al-Assad, he said immediately. Our enemy is not Syria, our enemy is Daesh [Arabic acronym of the group Islamic State ] . ”
Read also:
         Military intervention in Syria: why a debate without a vote in Parliament?

But “Our president had set a red line from the beginning of his term” , recalled Edouard Philippe, saying that the use of the chemical weapon was a “A strategy of deliberate and repeated terror” from the Syrian regime. According to him, the message is clear: ” No solution policy will not be found until the use of the chemical weapon goes unpunished. ”
For the majority, “France acts for a free Syria” The intervention of the Prime Minister was logically defended by Richard Ferrand, president of the group La Republique en marche (LRM) and by the centrists of the Modem and of UDI .
“There is no doubt that the three unanimously adopted UN resolutions [on chemical weapons] are a perfect foundation for action”, launched Mr. Ferrand, while the issue of the legitimacy of military intervention from the point of view of the law international was at the heart of the debate. “We prefer France, which acts for an insubordinate Syria, for a free Syria” , he said, addressing his political opponents.
“No one likes the sound of bombs, but today we are even more critical of chemical attacks. Rantings of bad faith have no place in such grave circumstances. ”
Marc Fesneau, chairman of the MoDem group, went in his direction, stating that the “Unsuccessful diplomatic action, signing of agreements and broken promises” made military intervention necessary in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons by the Bashar al-Assad regime. Similarly, Françoise Dumas, Vice-President of the defense stated that the intervention was based on “UN General Assembly Resolution 21.18”, but that because of the opposition of the Russia a concerted response was impossible.
Read also:
         What legal framework for the strikes in Syria?

Franck Riester, co-chair of the UDI-Agir-Indépendants group, dismissed criticism over the lack of evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. “The French information has brought this proof” he assured, echoing Richard Ferrand. “Close your eyes again would have been condemn to inaction, and renounce the weight of France in the world . ”
For the opposition, strikes “outside the international legal framework” But for the opposition, none of these arguments has convinced. Almost the same voice, Christian Jacob, for The Republicans , Jean-Luc Mélenchon , for the insubordinate France – whose interventions were applauded by the frontist deputies -, Valérie Rabault, for the socialists or the communist Jean-Paul Lecoq for the Democratic and Republican Left lambasted an intervention carried out “Outside the international legal framework” and without prior debate in Parliament.
Read also:
         Strikes in Syria: in France, the political debate far from a “sacred union”

“The national representation has its word to say . In deciding alone, the president alone has crossed a line, and we regret it ” , criticized Christian Jacob.
But for the opposition, it’s mainly the lack of a UN mandate – a “First in the history contemporary ” from France, pointed out Valérie Rabault – which constitutes an indefensible fault. Christian Jacob added that these targeted strikes had “Isolated” France and could not be “That the manifestation of a form of impotence on the bottom” if the government does not clarify its vision of what it “Search in Syria”.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon also deplored the absence “Ally of the European Union ” in this intervention, which included the United Kingdom, still a member of the EU for the moment. He was very incisive, assuring that France was not “Only moved by the concern for international rights”; to which the Prime Minister responded by stating:
” What we wanted make , it was good hit exclusively chemical installations, and exclusively Syrian installations. It is a message whose motivation is not the territorial conquest, not an economic interest. ”
Read also:
         In Syria: a military demonstration beyond the chemical targets

Despite the Prime Minister’s claims, Jean-Luc Mélenchon said that these strikes were “A declaration of war that is not one”. “We intervened without proof” , launched the head of wire of the Insoumis, under the denials of the deputies of the majority.
Jean-Paul Lecoq (Democratic and Republican Left) also said that it would have been necessary wait for the results [of the’ investigation of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] for give any legitimacy to any response “. “The fight against Daesh must not under any circumstances be diverted. Our enemy is Daesh, he said again.
The Prime Minister concluded by stating: “We govern with a vision of France, not necessarily consensual, but we assume it. ” If he stressed “The importance of the debate”, he also blasted opposition critics over the lack of parliamentary consultation.
“I must say that I can not imagine that the initial conception of the authors of the V e Republic was request in Parliament a public debate before the President can to hire an intervention army . “

Leave a comment

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.