“Saudi Arabia Introduced Salafism,” States Former French Defense Authority

Pierre Conesa Managing Director of Compagnie Européenne d’Intelligence Stratégique (CEIS). In January 2002 he was Director of the Analyse, de Prospective et d’Evaluation de Défense Centre. From 2000–2002 he was Reporter to the Minister of Defence. Between January and September 2000 he was Head of Mission for the Chief of Defence. From 1998–1999 he was Deputy of Mr Jean-Bernard Ouvrieu, Personal Representative of the Minister of Defence responsible for arms exports. From 1997–1998 he was Deputy Director, directorate for international relations, Ministry of Defence’s procurement agency. From 1992–1997 he was Assistant Director of the Délégation aux Affaires Stratégiques, Ministry of Defence.A professor at the Ecole Sciences-Po, he writes regularly for Le Monde diplomatique and several others journals dedicated to international relations. On his short trip to Iran, we managed to hunt an opportunity to hold an interview with him regarding the latest developments in the Middle East and the French policies thereabout.

 AVA Diplomatic’s Exclusive Interview with Pierre Conesa, France’s Former Defense Authority

 You are a seasoned French diplomat. The whole world has joined hands to bring back peace to the Middle East which has been ruffled by the ISIS. How do you see the role of France here?

Well, you remember that France refused to intervene with Americans during the invasion of Iraq; Mr. Chirac, our President at that time, decided to vote to veto it. So we have not been involved in the invasion of Iraq, which means that we are not in charge of, I would say, the mess, which is now the situation in Iraq. But our President has felt, himself, very concerned by the progression of the ISIS. So he decided to have quick military intervention to stop the military offensive of the ISIS towards Baghdad and perhaps to get the victory which would surprise everybody. In my personal opinion, I think that this military intervention should have been decided with some political conditions. To sum it up, we should ask why we are fighting the ISIS, because it has been beheading people, cutting the hands of thieves, oppressing women and forbidding other religions to defend Saudi Arabia who is beheading people and oppressing women. You know what I mean. That’s not a comprehensive policy. So if we had to intervene, we would have to intervene with political conditions. And the second aspect is, of course, impossible to solve the situation in the region without Iran.

 How much is France walking in the same direction with the US to fight the ISIS?

They are working jointly. You know, our military forces are divided, because we have an intervention in Mali. We have something ongoing in the Central African Region, and we have also this military operation against the ISIS, which means our lines of communication are much stressed. So the military capabilities of France here is quite limited. We just have 9 planes, I think. But the question is: is it the duty of the western countries? Or is it that of the Gulf countries? There are around 500-600 hundred planes in the Gulf region. Why don’t they intervene then?

 We see nowadays that France is making a great deal of efforts to bring its policies closer to the US, esp. during Mr. Sarkozy’s tenure when this strategy was at a peak. And about the ties between Russia and France, I can say we are witnessing that France is not delivering the war carriers it has manufactured for the Russians. Doesn’t such policy damage France’s foreign policy?

You might think that. But regarding the diplomatic attitude of France, I think that the hierarchy of problems has changed. For French diplomacy, the nuclear file was a top issue, but the regional situations have changed so much because of the ISIS and the Syrian crisis that I think the ISIS has been standing up as a top priority. But why? Because the nuclear case of Iran is not an internal problem in France, but terrorism and the ISIS which are totally related are a very important problem for France. Because you know that we have more than one thousand French citizens in Syria and Iraq, which means there are probably candidates who are still in France, and if they can go there, they can act in France. This is the most important problem for the French government. So they have to discuss it with Iran; they have to discuss it to fight against the ISIS, but also to manage the terrorist risk. So you see that the problems have changed and the most important thing here is to see what we do against the ISIS, the Islamists, the Jihadists, and second comes the importance of the nuclear case.

 Given France’s traditional, strong and vital role in Lebanon, do you have any plan to support and enhance the army of Lebanon so that this country can fight against the ISIS?

Of course. There is our cooperation with the Lebanese army.

 But we are noticing that the Lebanese army is not capable enough of fighting back the ISIS, and that is highlighting the role of Hezbollah. What is your take on all this?

The mission of the Lebanese army is not to fight against the ISIS. Their mission is to control the borders and to impeach the Syrian crisis to come onto the Lebanese soil. Because you’ve seen in Tripoli, which is a north Lebanese town, that there are some serious conflicts between Sunnis and Shias. So the strength of the Lebanese army is mainly to maintain the security of the borders and the country, not to fight.

 You said that France helped the Lebanese Army. Can you also refer to the arms and weapons the army was facilitated with?

Yes. There is a contract for delivering weapons, which could be armored vehicles and tanks to the Lebanese army and this contract was paid by Saudi Arabia. It dates back to a few months ago.

 France is earning big amounts of revenues by exporting weaponry and war facilities. Is there any change in the diversity of the exported products to the Middle East?

It hasn’t and it won’t, because, as you know, the Gulf States are buying weapons not to use them, they are using it as a storage. Have you ever seen Saudis fighting anywhere? So that’s not a threat.

 Nonetheless, it has been said that because of the political closeness between the policies of Saudi Arabia and Jihadist groups, many would think the jihadists may get their hands on these weapons.

As to the first part of your question, Saudi Arabia has mainly produced Salafism and this is the main tank of Jihadists today. So why do we fight against, I would say, small groups of jihadists without asking the main question which is what we should do with Saudi Arabia. This is the most important question in my mind. You know the story of Dr. Frankenstein? In the novel, Dr. Frankenstein appears with a monster. What we do now is to deal with the monster without dealing with Dr. Frankenstein.

 Can we control violence with violence?

No, but sometimes you need it.

 Do you prescribe that because you have been a military officer once?

No, no. I think that no one can use violence without knowing what political goal he is aiming for.

 But France hasn’t set a fine record in using violence in Africa. No satisfactory achievement thus far.

But examples can be different. In the Yugoslavian crisis, we were obliged to intervene, military speaking, with military men. Because it was a civil war and very close to Europe. So that’s a precise situation which requires one to use violence usefully.