The bombing of the Anglo-Saxons in Yemen shows a lot. First, we see that there were no border crossers willing to defend free passage through the Red Sea. Because of course no one can endorse the principle of attacks on passing boats outside a country's exclusive maritime zone. However, there is no shortage of local actors who are directly affected and capable of doing so. So who decided to entrust the US-UK tandem with overseeing free access to the Suez Canal? When was the UN consulted or requested? When was the French Presidency of the Security Council contacted or even consulted? Since each of the protagonists then has their allies, the message is addressed to those of the Houthis who equip them and support them, namely Iran. This ensures that the regional expansion of the war is effective in the region, without predicting what the response will be. The nature of the military actors and the limitations of their coalition give meaning to the global dimension of an ominous omen. In any case, it is an open door for outbidding, as is common in the camps whenever they have an advantage. We therefore have to concentrate on possible fire breaks. It is in these conditions that the game takes place in Lebanon, as it is the most inflammatory point in the game of tensions and connections. If we go by history, it is precisely such situations and processes that lead to large-scale wildfires.
The French are directly involved through the presence of 700 soldiers under blue helmets as peacekeepers in service of an agreement between the parties. Netanyahu's instructions to his army in Gaza show that there is no protection for UN personnel from them. Sometimes you might wonder if this might be a way to convey the feeling that there are no limits. In this case, France can and must take on the role of firewall. France's decision not to take part in the bombing of Yemen is a non-alignment measure that can give our country the opportunity to listen to all parties and thus have the opportunity to be useful and effective. As long as our country holds the presidency of the Security Council until the end of the month, it will be able to take initiatives and facilitate global or limited agreement processes to prevent contagion or reduce tensions. In this direction, national unity for peace measures is possible and, above all, necessary whenever this is clearly possible. In particular, to contribute to the return to the agreements that recently enabled the ceasefire in Lebanon. Of course, the context doesn't help. But that is no reason to despair in advance. If I express myself in this way, if I use these terms, it is because I believe that it is necessary to serve the cause of peace to my very modest extent. After the recent presidential and parliamentary votes, I feel a mandate and a responsibility. It is about showing those who are watching us in our country and internationally, in all political circles, that the French can speak with one voice and that the majority of them are therefore mobilizing for peace within the framework of international law. In other words, this point is a common reference for us, as it should be for all nations represented at the United Nations. In this context, let us recall how the French diplomatic mission to the United Nations recalled three days ago that France would always support the decisions of the International Court of Justice. And it continued to support the positions represented by the UN votes. The useful thing is to rely on good faith in France. The useful is the essential thing if, like me and so many others, we think that the generalization of war is imminent. We must broaden the front of resistance against its spread. Because this in turn expands the possibilities for a general ceasefire, especially in Gaza, where the massacre must end before everyone is dead.