By Jessica Reed
A few days after openDemocracy's Patrice De Beer pointed out that the War in Lebanon could be an opportunity for the French diplomacy, the Elysee and the Quai D'Orsay are deeply embarassed again. Out of the 4000 soliders promised to the UNIFIL, only 200 (with 150 more to come) were sent in Lebanon. Even George Bush seems irritated: he insisted yesterday on the matter of extreme urgency that is peace keeping in the country, hoping that France would soon display a more active involvement in the confict's resolution.
French newspaper Liberation offers a slightly different story mainly based on the fact that UN resolution 1701 is too vague. In an interview with Le Monde last July, President Chirac stipulated that one of the imperative condition he wanted before sending contigent abroad was the employment of force only under the Chapter VII of the UN, which allows the use of force only in cases of acts of agression. Such conditions are not named in the 1701 resolution, while garantees from the Lebanese government are understandably impossible to obtain.
In laymans terms, it seems France wants clearer terms of engagement and refuse to send troops in charge of peacekeeping to have them killed, kidnapped or injuried - as it previously happened in Beyrouth, Drakkar or Bosnia. Those demands sound perfectly reasonable. Shame they were voiced a little bit too late.
(1) I shall refer you to this wikipedia page explainning the satirical terminology.
Elsewhere: related discussion in the openDemocracy forums.
