France said to want only symbolic force

[tocqueville]

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - Countries that could contribute to an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon were gathering Thursday to find out how the troops will operate, and U.N. officials hoped many would commit soldiers.

France, meanwhile, wants to send a small, purely symbolic contingent to the force, and the United Nations is trying to convince French officials that such a decision would be devastating, a news report said Thursday.

Though France has been widely expected to lead the force, the newspaper Le Monde reported that it planned to contribute merely 10 officers and 200 military engineers.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was expected to call President Jacques Chirac on Thursday to persuade France to make a larger commitment, Le Monde said, citing unidentified diplomatic sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_mideast_force

what I can read of comments in French press, the French don't want to be sitting ducks. If there is a clear mandate and clear rules of engagement, then it's another story. When you read that some parts wanted France to be kind of a replacement for the Israeli forces, it makes everybody angry here.

interview with Chirac :

"How do you see an international force in Lebanon, and what would France's role be?

Use of a multinational force implies a number of essential conditions. The first is the acceptance of a ceasefire by all players concerned. The second is the acceptance of the very principle of an international force by the various parties. And the third is that this force should be under UN Chapter VII.
The mandate of this force should be very carefully prepared. First, there is a political objective, which is for the legal Lebanese government to recover full sovereignty over its entire territory. This is a sine qua non. There is also a military objective, which is to enable the Lebanese forces, restructured and assisted, to deploy across Lebanon and ensure the country's security.
This intervention force must have the resources and the rules of engagement suited to its mission.
The deployment zone must be consistent in size with its mission. Its mission would be to control the ceasefire and to ensure borders are respected, both the Israeli-Lebanese border and the Syrian-Lebanese border, naturally. The task would be to ensure that the zone from which Hizbullah should in principle have withdrawn - that is the aim – has been fully demilitarised. And, finally, the mission of this force would be to ensure that no rockets, of any nature, are fired on Israel.
We also need to handle the security of the Israeli-Palestinian border."
http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais/speeches_and_documents/2006/interv iew_with_jacques_chirac_president_of_the_french_republic_for_le_monde_newspaper. 56824.html

No Chapter VII mandate, no precise mission, no detailed rules of engagement = no French troops. Easy enough.

[Solo_in_MD]

1. Between Hezbollah refusing to disarm in and the inability of UNIFIL

1701 is an empty shell. Unless the promised militia free zone patrolled by Lebanese and French troop shape up soon, there will be more sparks and the inferno will begin again.

[Truthiness Inspector]

2. I agree

"Symbolic" forces aren't going to be sufficient to keep the peace I'm afraid.