Some say "we cannot sleep quietly"; others say French have "no interests" in a civil war.


PARIS — As the French Parliament debated Wednesday whether the nation should launch strikes against Syria, so too did the people of Paris in news pages and in cafes.

There is both support and opposition to the French joining the U.S. in a military strike in response to dictator Bashar Assad's suspected gassing of his own people to put down a rebellion.

Like the United States, the French have determined that Assad's military killed more than 1,400 people, mostly children, when he used chemical weapons to attack a rebel stronghold last month.

Parisian lawyer Thierry Tonnellier said France should punish Assad for such an act.

"It's unacceptable that a government uses such weapons against its own people," he said.

"In the past, we had remained silent when the Nazis were gassing their own people. We cannot sleep quietly while history is repeating itself.

"Airstrikes should be used to convey a message that the punishment for such action would result in loss of military capability and that if you do it again, there will be a heavier price to pay," he said.

But others say France should not be projecting military power against a country that is involved in a civil war.

Blaise Picard, a Paris-based marketing consultant, said the French have "no interests whatsoever" in Syria.

"The Americans have strategic and geopolitical interests in their mind. They may also want to bring down Assad as he is a Russian ally. And even then, the U.S. is hesitating because the alternative to Assad could be more disastrous than Assad himself. Clearly, no one wants him to go," he said.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault on Wednesday handed to the French National Assembly an intelligence report that he says proves Assad was behind the alleged chemical attack. The nine-page document was drawn up by France's military and foreign intelligence services.

He said France should act, but not by itself.

"There is no question of France acting alone. The president of the Republic is working on persuading and bringing together a coalition as quickly as possible," Ayrault said.

The French debate comes as the U.S. Congress discusses whether to back President Obama's plan to launch some kind of strike against Assad over the chemical weapons attack. French President Francois Hollande has said the world must punish Assad's regime. The British Parliament, in an effort led by the Labor Party, voted against Prime Minister David Cameron's request to join such a strike.

No vote is scheduled in the French Parliament. France's constitution doesn't require such a vote for military intervention unless it lasts longer than four months.

A member of the French Parliament, Jean-Frédéric Poisson of the Christian Democratic Party, told USA TODAY he sees no reason why France should intervene.

"It seems clear that both Assad and the rebels have used chemical weapons. In this context, I don't see what are France's interests and responsibilities in intervening and taking part in an intra-religious conflict," he said.

He advocated a solution through diplomatic means and approval from the United Nations if any such action is to be taken. He also cautioned about the consequences of forcing Assad from power.

"An extremist, fundamentalist regime will replace him," he said. "One must consider its repercussions on Lebanon, Christians from the Middle East as well as the international disorder it will bring about."

Picard said he found it strange that no country intervened in the past two years of the Syrian civil war, when tens of thousands of people were being killed by Assad's forces. The U.N. estimates that more than 100,000 civilians have been killed, and several Arab countries have been aiding rebels by shipping them arms and money.

"Apart from some high-brow intelligentsia in France, not many people would support our country's involvement in the Syrian conflict," he said.

Student Basile Albert said France should intervene provided the country doesn't do it alone.

He said that the intervention in Syria should be similar to the one in Libya where air power was used. "No French troops should be put in the conflict zone," he said.

"They should definitely intervene, but in coalition with USA and some European and Arabic countries. The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable," he said. "And unlike Iraq's WMD in 2003, this time there is definite proof of its use by the Assad regime."

However, Iraq's Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 300,000 of his people to put down rebellions, and he also used chemical weapons to end an uprising of Kurds in Halabja, killing 3,200 to 5,000 people.

When asked about that, Tonnellier said that perhaps one of the reasons the world did not react as it did now is because it took longer for the proof of the atrocities to surface.

"Also, compared to two decades ago, the current situation is unfolding in real time, which is a compelling factor," he said.

Model and theater actress Agathe Anquez said she feels France should act against Syria only as a part of the United Nations mandate.

"The key is transparency. The government should tell the people why it wants to intervene and what would be the consequences of such an action," she said.

Read or Share this story: