Sire it is worse that a crime it is a fault told Talleyrand

Should it be a true "duty of coherence between the external action of States and their domestic policy It's certainly a difficult requirement: could easily multiply examples of structural contradictions. Thus, at the beginning of the 1980s the Reagan administration wanted simultaneously less State in America and more than America in the world. The US President has been lucky: his country has seemingly overcome this contradiction and the collapse of the USSR as crowned the end of his two terms. But America is out very indebted to this exercise of balancing act and this debt did only get worse since.

Does it not exist also today in France an inconsistency between political and foreign policy inner Paris thus launches its armed forces to support the "party of hope" in Libya, and launches a debate on islam to seduce the "party of fear" in France. Eventually gains on external do not likely to be outweighed by the cost of the debate launched within

Intervene in Libya corresponded to a just, even if intuition diplomatically, could have been dreaming of a decision-making and effect of "more conventional" and less costly announcement at the European level. But the essence was not there. Intervene in Libya and avoid that the winter is brutally succeeded spring across the Mediterranean, supporting the Party of the peoples against the despots, was "go in the sense of history". And a selective intervention is preferable to widespread abstention. This is not because it does not Bahrain or Syria should not save the city of Benghazi to announced massacre.

Our intervention alongside the Arab peoples who want to conduct all simply a normal life and does not have shame of the image of their country in the world could also have benefits in France Similarly, in the communities of Muslim origin. These communities, in a double movement, could feel proud of what their country, the France, and proud, finally, Arab roots. Yesterday, a double identity crisis to the France and their culture of origin pushed them to seek identity of substitution in islam. Now, how could they be indifferent to the intervention of the France alongside "rebels" Intervention in their positive, even if eyes for some oil interests or political calculations are no strangers to this humanitarian intervention...

Not to mention all those who retain a vision of history dominated by conspiracy theory. And it is in this context that the President of the Republic insists to maintain, at the initiative of the UMP, a debate on secularism and islam, rightly criticized by the highest religious authorities of our country. "Sire, it is worse that a crime, it is a fault," told Talleyrand. Why take the risk of stigmatizing the islam of France at the same time where there is a positive gesture to the Arab peoples Why reduce or cancel by electoral calculations potential and profits in the long term of our strategic positioning To attract the votes of "party of fear" The classical right will always be late of a stage to the temptations of an extreme right now looks more reassuring clothes of "social populism."

Of course, is that of a debate, but it is a bad symbol at the wrong time, which directly contradicts the new directions of the foreign policy of the France across the Mediterranean. How to pass a new breath, how to encourage "among them" fragile opening signs if it maintains its "home" a policy which bears the imprint of all signs of the suspicion If one of the meanings of the "Arab spring" is the progressive entry in a post-islamiste world, why encourage the stigmatization of islam

Yesterday, should not be said to be "discourage Boulogne-Billancourt. Today, why should we be well needlessly offend the "93" in order to reassure the voices of the "92"