Speech on Syria by André Gattolin during the general discussion, September 4th 2013
Since the beginning of our senatorial mandate, never have we discussed such an important topic. Given the severity of the situation, we ought to express ourselves with the upmost seriousness and sincerity. It appears to me that the question of whether or not to intervene in Syria is an empty debate.
The urgency of the situation and the deepening of this conflict dictate that we focus our attention today on a clear definition of the necessary reaction, which must be as appropriate as possible. We must therefore determine what will be the framework for our reaction, what measures it will include, and what other measures need to be put in place for a follow-up of our reaction.
I believe there is a wide consensus among us, insofar as we are all aware that an ill-planned intervention would probably be as negative, or perhaps even worse, than no intervention at all. It is, of course, out of the question for France to intervene on its own, and it is not our intention either to write a blank check to a coalition whose form, objectives and political implications are unknown.
Thus, it is essential to take advantage of the days to come, the G20 summit in Russia, the meeting of the EU’s Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the debate beginning to take place among our fellow American congressmen, in order to clarify our position.
Today, on September 4th 2013, the death toll in Syria has increased to over 100 000 victims; 6 million people have been displaced, including 2 million who have left Syria and are now in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, notably in Turkey and Jordan, where the living conditions are appalling.
Of these 2 million people, more than half are children. The United Nations has said so itself: such a situation is unprecedented.
We are witnessing a degree of violence, especially against the most vulnerable people, that had not been seen since World War II. This is undeniable. So is the use of chemical weapons, which no one denies though it is unclear, for some, who exactly would claim responsibility for their use.
We await with the utmost attention the reports produced by the UN inspectors, which nevertheless are not meant to publicly disclose the origin of these chemical weapons. Yet some elements have already been gathered by governments, humanitarian organisations and several media (Le Monde, BBC…), and they all tend to support the same conclusion.
Firstly, these weapons have indeed been used. Secondly, the regime in Damascus seems to be the only actor having the capacity to launch such attacks, in particular the one carried out on August 21st in the outskirts of the capital, where many democrats opposed to Bashar al-Assad reside.
The recent declarations by Bashar al-Assad to a French daily newspaper, which I can only describe as surreal, leave no doubt about his murderous determination and about what he would be capable of in the absence of an international reaction.
Let us be clear, if we persist in our inaction towards the growing horror of this conflict, we are de facto accepting a “decriminalization” of the use of these weapons, which the Syrian regime obviously sees as conventional weapons since it has used them on several occasions, despite the fact that their prohibition constitutes a pillar of humanitarian and international law since the end of the World War I and in particular since the signature of the Geneva protocol in 1925.
If we do nothing, we run the risk of seeing the annihilation of the democratic components of the rebellion, which were targeted during the bombing of August 21st 2013. We would be left with a confrontation between Bashar al-Assad with his Iranian and Hezbollah allies, and the other components of the rebellion, which are blatantly anti-democratic.
If we do nothing, we run the risk of seeing a further weakening of the United Nations. Some of our colleagues, who doubt the possibility of an international intervention, consider that an intervention which would not avail itself of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandate would bring a devastating blow to the influence of the United Nations.
In reality, the greatest risk on this matter is inaction, for it would reinforce the power of nuisance of countries such as Russia, who consistently abuses its veto right within the UNSC. By not allowing a political settlement to the conflict for the past 2 years, Russia has indeed enabled the al-Assad regime to continue its atrocities.
Our debate today will not end by a vote, which at this point is logical after all, given that so many parameters can still change. It is next week, once these parameters have been accurately established, that we will be able to vote, and –as the ecologists urge you– we will have to vote …
Let me therefore refer to three points, three parameters that must be investigated prior to reconvening the Parliament on this issue.
First, the US Congress is expected to vote on September 9, 2013, on a possible US air strike, targeted and highly specific; without said strike, a French military intervention would be put into question…But whatever the final decision of our allies on this subject may be, we must mobilize the international community in an unprecedented manner. Presently, major members of the Arab League, Turkey and Japan have announced their support to a possible operation, but the form of such support remains unknown. Yet, we must go even further.
Then, emerging countries such as Brazil must be approached in order to determine whether their positions could evolve, taking recent developments into account.
Third, the European Union must mobilize itself, and free itself out of its guilty numbness.
I previously mentioned the constraints of the UNSC, but it is also striking to observe that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) is also absent from the debate, even though it is immune from veto paralysis. France and its partner countries must ask for an urgent General Assembly to be convened in order to vigorously remind all nations of the prohibition to use chemical weapons and demand an International Criminal Court investigation on the recent bombings. Adopting such a Declaration at the UNGA would strengthen the government’s resolve to intervene.
Of course, a mere UNGA Declaration would not have the same weight as a UNSC Resolution, but it would nevertheless set us free from the unbearable blockade that has plagued the UN since the beginning of this conflict.
For it is important to remember that today, the democratic components of the Syrian opposition, particularly the Free Syrian Army, are clamouring for an intervention from the international community. This was not the case two years ago. It is shocking to hear that the opposition is still largely ill-equipped in comparison with other actors in this conflict despite the promises that were made that equipment would be delivered. What are we waiting for to strengthen the opposition and treat its representatives as legitimate spokespersons? This is an absolute necessity to allow for an evolution of the current status of the forces in play.
Mister President,
Minister,
Fellow senators,
The Syrian rebellion began as a reaction to the plight of some children under fifteen, who had naively adopted a motto heard during the Arab revolutions « People want the regime to fall ». This earned them to be arrested and tortured…Two years later it is still the children who are the primary victims of this infamous war.
Their security and that of millions of others who have been displaced must become our priority, including outside of the war theatre itself.
How does France intend to participate in the international efforts aimed at sheltering Syrian refugees?
Will the government soon reconsider its decision of last January to force Syrian travellers to ask for airport transit visas for even the shortest transit in a waiting area of our airports? Otherwise this decision obviously results in hampering the escape of people already tested and under immense pressure.
We need to be in line with the most fundamental humanitarian principles, and it is clear today that this is a necessary and just action, as we are faced with a Syrian population who not only pays the cost of the madness of a dictator and his allies, but also that of the mistakes made by those who supposedly want to help the people.
The environmentalist group of the Senate welcomes the President’s willingness to reverse the awful lack of action that has prevailed so far while faced with the Syrian tragedy. Hence, we ask from the government that it takes advantage of this brief respite that the circumstances have given us. It would allow the government to precisely define the manner in which France might intervene, to establish an alternative scenario to an air operation, or complementary measures to it or another solution altogether in case our allies renounced to go ahead with an air operation, and to commit ever so seriously in preparing a Geneva 2 conference. Indeed this conference, which has been deferred, should include all stakeholders in order to prepare the kind of transition we all wish for.
Thank you.