The
French Senate (AFP Photo/Jacques Demarthon – think IN pictures @1WORLDCommunity)
N.nizah – (RT.
Published September 04, 2013) Perancis untuk berdebat jika negara perlu
mengambil tindakan ketenteraan terhadap Syria. Kerajaan Perancis telah bersedia
untuk membincangkan sama ada negara ini seharusnya mengambil bahagian dalam
campur tangan ketenteraan di Syria, dengan 59% peratus daripada Perancis menentang.
2
perbahasan akan berlaku: salah seorang daripada mereka di dalam rumah atas
Senat Perancis, dan yang lain dalam Kongres Kebangsaan Dewan. Presiden Perancis
Francois Hollande telah penyokong sengit mengambil tindakan ketenteraan
terhadap kerajaan Bashar Assad, tetapi dia tidak berjanji untuk menghasut
tindakan ketenteraan jika Kongres Amerika Syarikat tidak meluluskan serangan
tentera.
Amerika
Syarikat dan Perancis menuduh kerajaan Syria menggunakan senjata kimia Ogos 21
serangan di pinggir bandar Damsyik. Hollande berkata undi Amerika Syarikat
lewat pada hari Rabu “akan mempunyai kesan ke atas gabungan itu yang kita perlu
buat.”
Tiada
Undi sebenar di Perancis dijadualkan, walaupun ahli-ahli kedua-dua dewan akan
membahaskan isu ini. Perlembagaan Perancis tidak memerlukan apa-apa undi untuk
campur tangan tentera kecuali yang tahan lebih lama daripada 4 bulan.
“Eropah
perlu bersatu di memberkaskan ini dan ia akan, masing-masing dengan
tanggungjawab sendiri. Perancis akan menerima peranannya. “Pemimpin Perancis
juga menegaskan bahawa dia lebih berazam untuk bertindak selepas membaca
wawancara Assad dengan akhbar Perancis Le Figaro. Presiden Syria menafikan
menggunakan senjata kimia dan memberi amaran kepada Perancis yang “kesan negative”
kepada kepentingan, patutkah negara ini memilih untuk menyerang.
“Sesiapa
yang menyumbang kepada pengukuhan kewangan dan ketenteraan pengganas adalah
musuh rakyat Syria. Jika dasar-dasar kerajaan Perancis memusuhi rakyat Syria, nagara
ini akan menjadi musuh mereka, “kata Assad, sambil menambah bahawa orang
Perancis sendiri tidak musuh, tetapi dasar-dasar kerajaan Perancis dianggap
sebagai musuh.
Pada
Isnin, kerajaan Perancis mengeluarkan ekstrak kecerdasan dikumpulkan oleh
kedua-dua agensi perisikan terkemuka di Perancis, mendakwa bahawa rejim Assad
adalah di sebalik serangan dan sekurang-kurangnya 2 serangan lain awal tahun
ini. Pada hari Selasa, pemimpin Perancis menegaskan bahawa Perancis mempunyai
bukti bahawa ejen saraf, sarin, telah digunakan dalam serangan terbaru itu,
tuntutan pegawai-pegawai Amerika juga telah membuat.
Walau
bagaimanapun, orang Perancis tidak yakin: majoriti mereka – 59% peratus -
adalah terhadap penglibatan Perancis dalam campur tangan tentera, menurut
terkini tinjauan pendapat awam yang dijalankan oleh IFOP (Perancis Institut
Pendapat Awam) untuk akhbar Le Figaro. Aymeri de Montesquiou, yang merupakan
ahli Senat Perancis, memberitahu RT bahawa Perancis tidak boleh terlalu cepat
bergantung kepada keputusan Amerika Syarikat mengenai campur tangan tentera.
“Saya
fikir kita perlu berhati-hati dan kita perlu menunggu keputusan pakar
Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Ingat, pada tahun 2003, bukti-bukti telah
dipalsukan. Dan ia adalah satu bencana bagi Iraq dan ekonomi DUNIA < . . . >
Kita tidak boleh bergantung kepada keputusan Amerika. Jika kita bersetuju, kita
mempunyai keputusan yang sama, jika kita tidak bersetuju, kita tidak mempunyai
keputusan yang sama. Tetapi kita tidak boleh mengikutnya secara automatik . . .
"
TERKINI LIVE
RT pada
krisis 'Senjata Kimia' Syria klik sini (RT's LIVE UPDATES on Syrian 'chemical
weapons' crisis).
France
to debate if the country should take military
action against Syria . . .
The
French government is set to discuss whether the country should take part in the
military intervention in Syria, with 59 per cent of the French are against the
move.
Two
debates will take place: one of them in the upper house of the French senate,
and the other one in the National Congress Chamber. The French President
Francois Hollande has been a fierce proponent of taking military action against
Bashar Assad’s government, but he pledged not to instigate military action if
the US Congress doesn’t approve a military offensive.
The
US and France accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in an
August 21 attack in the Damascus suburbs. Hollande said that the US vote later
on Wednesday "will have consequences on the coalition that we will have to
create."
No
actual vote in France is scheduled, although the members of both chambers will
debate the issue. France's constitution doesn't require such a vote for military
intervention unless its lasts longer than four months.
"Europe
must unite on this dossier and it will, each with its own responsibility.
France will accept its role." The French leader also pointed out that he
was even more determined to act after reading Assad’s interview with the French
newspaper Le Figaro. The Syrian President denies using chemical weapons and
warns France of "negative repercussions" on its interests, should the
country choose to attack.
“Anybody
who contributes to the financial and military reinforcement of terrorists is
the enemy of the Syrian people. If the policies of the French state are hostile
to the Syrian people, the state will be their enemy,” Assad said, adding that
the French people themselves were not enemies, but the French government’s
policies were regarded as hostile.
On
Monday, the French government released an extract of intelligence gathered by
two leading French intelligence agencies, alleging that Assad's regime was
behind the attack and at least two other assaults earlier this year. On
Tuesday, the French leader stressed that France had evidence that the nerve
agent, sarin, was used in the latest attack, a claim American officials have
also made.
However,
the French people are not convinced: the majority of them – 59 per cent - are
against French involvement in the military intervention, according to the
latest public opinion poll conducted by IFOP (French Institute of Public
Opinion) for Le Figaro newspaper. Aymeri de Montesquiou, who is member of the French
senate, told RT that France shouldn’t be too quick to rely on a US decision
regarding military intervention.
“I
think we must be very cautious and we must wait for the decision of United
Nations experts. Remember, in 2003, the proofs were forged. And it was a
disaster for Iraq and for the world economy < . . . > We mustn’t be
dependent on the American decision. If we agree, we have the same decision; if
we don’t agree, we don’t have the same decision. But we mustn’t follow
automatically . . .”
No comments:
Post a Comment