France

It is 13 years to the day since Pol Pot died in mysterious circumstances while in exile on Cambodia’s remote western border with Thailand. Where did Pot and his maniacal fellow travellers acquire their politics. There are a number of candidates from the megalomania of the 20th Century, but Michael Sheridan, the Sunday Times’ former Asia Editor, notes that France, or more exactly aspects of French culture at the end of the colonial era, played its part. He explained why to the Spectator. Pol Pot and Chardonnay, Michael Sheridan, 21 September 1996 Not long ago, the Americans found in their archives in Washington a long-forgotten film about Cambodia, made by the United States Information Service at the beginning of the 1960s.

The conflict in the Ivory Coast looks as though it is now coming to and end. Former president Laurent Gbagbo was arrested yesterday by French officials supporting President Alassane Ouattara, after weeks of violent fighting. Gbagbo lost re-election last November to Ouattara but refused to give up power. Gbagbo, who was in office for more than a decade, will now be investigated for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is a momentous event. The continent's post-independence "big men" had, over decades, become accustomed to permanent power. If they lost an election, they simply threatened (or encouraged) violence until a power-sharing deal was cobbled together which allowed them to stay in office. For examples see Kenya and Zimbabwe.

Just because Nicolas Sarkozy believes something does not make it untrue. The French president was adamant that Nato shouldn't take over the Libya campaign. He preferred to run an ad hoc coalition of the willing. Britain, however, was keen for the alliance to take control of a mission that seemed too loosely-organised. Once the United States decided to fade into the background of the military operation, the impetus for a switch to Nato grew. A few weeks into the transfer, people are beginning to wonder whether President Sarkozy was right in the first place. According to yesterday's Sunday Times, Nato is doing what it did in Bosnia: blocking the rebels from arming themselves.

The Libya intervention has already turned the international kaleidoscope, showing new and remarkable patterns. It has seen China acquiesce to a no-fly zone, and the West in alliance with the Arab League. Nobody thought that was likely 6 months ago. It has also changed reputations. Nicolas Sarkozy may win re-election on the back of the war. William Hague, who had a bad revolution, is having a good war.   The government has become more multilateralist, as opposed to the kind of bilateralism it espoused when it took office. Nearly a year ago, it sent a clear message to the FCO — bilateral ties would matter, multilateral ties less so.

The coalition is now in danger of coming unstuck — not because of failure, but because of its success. It needs to urgently decide how to run itself and what its aims are. Before it runs out of targets. Neither is easy to do. The US may want to handover control of the mission but there is not really anyone they can transfer authority to. NATO is being blocked from assuming control, the EU does not have the wherewithal — its naval mission off Somalia's coast is already run out of Permanent Joint Headquarters in north London — and the UK and France would struggle to run the mission, either jointly or individually.

I'm hearing more reports about the rather peculiar behaviour of Nicholas Sarkozy, and how he is playing the Libya campaign thus far. Obama wants to hand over leadership of this mission quick. He was never really into it, but the US Navy was overwhelmingly the best placed to do the first phase of the mission (ie, fire Tomahawks into 20 Libyan targets). The Tomahawk team constituted 11 US ships and submarines, plus one British submarine. Anything other than American leadership would have been a joke. Phase Two is to take out Gaddafi's surface-to-air missiles as soon as he dares to move them. Obama wants to hand over the baton to NATO, with its bases in southern Italy and other Mediterranean nations. But Sarko objects. He likes the idea of US, UK and France as a triumvirate.

And so it starts. French News Channel BFM reports that French fighter jets are airborne over Libyan skies; al Jazeera corroborates the report, adding that these are reconnaissance missions. By the sounds of things, French military sources are briefing international agencies, adding to the sense that the domestically troubled President Sarkozy wants to capitalise on his sudden international prominence. Sarkozy has just been speaking outside the summit meeting in Paris, which he hosted as Chairman of the G20 and G8. His words were stern: "In Libya, a civilian population which is passive which requires nothing further than the right to choose itself its destiny finds itself in danger of life. We have a duty to respond to its angst-ridden call.

"There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight." Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi's latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking "all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force." Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice, is a no-fly zone — and more.

I began the week in Israel, where I watched Tzipi Livni make an extraordinary pitch for the premiership by representing herself as the candidate of moderation and peace. I ended it in Place de la Republique in Paris where secular Algerians had gathered to show solidarity with their countrymen demonstrating against "le pouvoir" in Algiers. Their slogan, "Laicité, Egalité, Liberté", is refreshing. Am I wrong to feel quietly optimistic on both fronts? As we reported in the Jewish Chronicle this week, Tzipi Livni also made a significant overture to the diaspora Jewish community by saying she welcomed a wider discussion about the future direction of Israel from outside the country itself.

Today's Times splashed on the spat between Britain and EU foreign policy "czar" Catherine Ashton over the embargo barring arms sales to China. The embargo was put in place after the Tianamen Square massacre and has remained in place, largely at US insistence, ever since. But is it the right policy? The policy has not prevented China from becoming a military power — its annual defense budget officially stands at $70 billion, although the Pentagon believes the real figure to be twice as high. China is developing carrier-killing missiles that even NATO does not have, and will soon sell weapons rather than seek to import them. There is, of course, a moral argument: the sanctions were put in place because of China's human rights violations.