blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The
Two forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Monday, March 11, 2019
CONTRIBUTION (9) TO THE NATIONAL DEBATE
WISHED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN 2019. THE RETURN OF THE
JIHADISTS (12), THE COURAGE TO RECOGNIZE LEGALITY, PREMIER MINISTER,
DIPLOMACY (Continuation of reflection n ° 11 of 8 February 2019, cf
.: Madic50)
1) - The reflection of the Prime
Minister
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019, Prime
Minister Édouard Philippe is received by Ruth Elkrief on BFMTV
When asked about the return of the
jihadists, he said:
"Édouard Philippe:
We do not bring back anyone.
The French doctrine has always been to
say that the French who went to combat zones were combatants.
As we deliver fights, they are
fighters, French or not, they are fighters against us.
When they are prisoners, when they have
been arrested, they have a vocation to be judged on the place where
they committed the crimes. They are intended to be judged and if
necessary punished on the spot.
This is happening in Iraq
Ruth Elkrief:
Including by the death penalty?
Édouard Philippe:
You know that we are opposed to the
death penalty.
But the French who are guilty of crimes
in Iraq or Syria, are likely to be tried in Iraq or Syria.
The question you ask about the possible
return that we do not wish because we want to be judged on the spot
the French who would be detained not by the Syrian authorities but by
the Syrian democratic forces, ie by the Kurds in the north-east of
the country, for the moment these French and many other nationalities
are held, They are intended to be judged there. "
The Prime Minister's statement has the
clarity of courage and common sense but also the obscure
contradictions of the legal stalemate.
To the contradiction of the Prime
Minister's speech, everyone can understand that the judicial
treatment of jihadist prisoners in Syria leads European countries to
examine their relationship to the legality of international law.
It is to this examination that the
following reflection is devoted.
2) - The contradictions
1- The Prime Minister clearly states
that the jihadists "are not intended to return to France"
and that they "have a vocation to be judged there".
2- It is precisely this "over
there" that he struggles to define.
The orientation formula: "But the
French who are guilty of crimes in Iraq or Syria, are likely to be
judged in Iraq or Syria. "
The formula of execution: "the
French who would be held not by the Syrian authorities but by the
Syrian democratic forces, ie by the Kurds in the North-East of the
country, ... They have vocation to be judged over there. "
3) - State and NGOs
In the statement of the principled
position of refusal of the jihadists' return, Iraq and Syria are put
on the same level. These are two sovereign states that can judge
criminals who officiate on their soil.
The Prime Minister and therefore the
government recognize the existence of "Syrian authorities"
distinctly parallel to the "Syrian democratic forces"
(SDS).
In doing so, the Head of Government
recognizes both the existence of a Syrian state and the exclusivity
of the government of Damascus in the representation of that state.
Other Syrian forces that might have
claimed state representation are not recognized as such. They are
recognized as organizations of opposition to the State, thus external
to it and incapable of replacing it.
They are not recognized by anyone as
state power. This is why President Trump is asking the Europeans to
take back their nationals when he withdraws the United States from
Syria and abandons the Kurds.
The Syrian state is in full exercise
and the SDS are NGOs.
4) - The legal deadlock
It is at this moment that the legal
impasse is built.
Secular French diplomatic policy does
not recognize governments but states.
Contrary to this policy, the Prime
Minister finally takes up the logic according to which the opposition
of the French government to the government of Damascus builds or
necessarily entails the legal possibility of legally and legally
substituting the FDS and Kurds for the Syrian state, Syrian
authorities ".
This political path is inevitably a
legal impasse since the SDS can not replace the Syrian state.
In the end, to identify "Syria"
with the Kurds and the SDS amounts to affirming in the same
intervention a refusal of the return of the jihadists and a clever
acceptance of this one.
This political pirouette as a legal
definition leads to another impasse on French soil since the French
justice has no way of knowing the crimes committed in Syria and she
has repeatedly said that she had neither the right and the will to
judge.
5) - The confusion
The construction of this legal impasse
takes place by the confusion of the jihadist question with the
question of the confrontations of the political forces ("Syrian
authorities" and FDS).
These two realities, the political
conflicts and the jihadist judgment, are distinct.
1- The conflicting and military
relations of the "Syrian authorities" with the "SDS",
also known as "Syrian opposition", can be dealt with in
diplomatic bodies.
2- Jihadists are only war criminals.
They depend only on the fate of war and the justice of peace.
The jihadists can not be politically or
legally negotiating instruments, stooges, the place of one and the
other in the international conferences that accompany this conflict
that mobilizes on the Syrian soil a dozen countries.
There is no continuity, political and
legal, between the rupture of the diplomatic relations with the
Syrian government by the French government and its priority
engagement with the FDS, and the judicial question of a group
universally recognized as criminal.
They are neither "partners"
nor "opposition".
The discussion of the fate of the
jihadists is only a question of measures of war (they are killed on
the battlefield) and determination of the competent justice (they are
judged once prisoners).
If we pretend to see a continuity
between the jihadists and the political conflicts, we will soon have
to look at the thin line between the crimes of the jihadists, the
SDFs and the "Syrian authorities".
It will be a matter of diplomatically
maintaining the chaos, political and military, and the jihadists will
have served the international troublemakers well.
5) - French chaos
If this confusion is not dispelled,
French politics will become an instrument of diffusion of jihadism,
its zone of withdrawal and restoration.
It suffices to hear the fears of French
administrations and French to understand that pearl necklaces of
confusion are those of adventure.
Let us recall that the French justice
has no way of knowing the crimes committed in Syria and that it has
repeated repeatedly that it had neither the right nor the will to
judge.
The return of the jihadists, contrary
to what we want to make us believe, is not only about order in
prisons.
It would be a victory for the French
Islamist party and its ramifications in the state; a manifestation of
his power.
6) - International legality
The Prime Minister has certified that
the Syrian state exists. This implies that he exercises his right
"Syrian authority" throughout the territory of Syria. Its
current absence from Kurdish territory does not detract from this
quality.
In terms of the judgment of criminals,
Syria is in this case neither the government of Damascus nor the
multiple SDS.
Judicial Syria is Syrian justice.
It is therefore to this one that one
must turn to examine the judicial question of these jihadists.
The concept of Separation of Powers
allows French justice to take language with Syrian justice and to
examine the issue of jihadists detained in Syria by NGOs.
To ignore the justice of the Southern
States is a culture of colonial memory which is a humiliation, even
silent, for all concerned states.
What is an intangible fact is that the
jihadists can not leave the Syrian soil without being tried and have
responded to the crimes they committed there. They can do it legally
only in front of the Syrian and Iraqi justices.
Only then can they be repatriated to
France to be tried for crimes they committed there or wanted to
commit by taking Syria as a base of formation and expansion.
This is not the only way but it is the
only one that is legal, democratic, effective in matters of public
order.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire