Dominique de Villepin: A pre-emptive strike that has hit democracy

From the Alastair Buchan Memorial Lecture by the French Foreign Minister, given at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London

The military operation in Kosovo was a legitimate enterprise and a political success. But it was also a source of divisions. Some saw it as the first instance of a right to intervene on humanitarian grounds without a UN mandate. We, however, saw it as an exception, justified by a large support and the threat of humanitarian disaster.

Through the Iraqi crisis, two different understandings of the world are coming head to head. According to one such understanding, developed in US think-tanks, democracy can be imposed from the outside. Having faith in the power of the law is therefore something of a delusion. International legal tools become constraints more than safeguards of international security. Some even say that the US would assume its responsibilities alone and show its strength while Europe's position reflects its weakness.

It also means that some governments might decide of their own accord to strike first given the scope of a threat. Self-defence then knows no bounds. But the limits of the use of force in Iraq and unclear political prospects for the country fuel many questions on the relevance of such an analysis.

We believe in democracy, just as the British and Americans do. With the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US constitution, our countries headed the democratic revolution. We do not oppose the use of force. We are only warning against the risks of pre-emptive strikes as a doctrine. What example are we setting for other countries? How legitimate would we feel such action to be?.

In endorsing this doctrine, we risk introducing the principle of constant instability and uncertainty. Do not let us open a Pandora's box.