Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty and sentenced to five years in jail for campaign finance violations, a historic ruling in a case that has long captivated Parisian politics.

The court concluded that Sarkozy had exceeded legal spending limits during his 2007 presidential election campaign, and engaged in a conspiracy to obscure the sources of illicit funds he received from Libya’s late leader Muammar Gaddafi, as various evidence has demonstrated.

However, while the conviction targets money, it leaves untouched the far heavier human toll of his foreign policy decisions – from the 2011 Libya intervention to its cascade of wars, state collapse, and crises brought on by migration across the Mediterranean and Sahel. In other words, France’s courts can punish illicit euros, but fails to account for the blood spilled in the pursuit of regime change.

Earlier this year, while discussing the saga surrounding Sarkozy’s campaign funds, a source speaking to me anonymously, and corroborated by a former Libyan intelligence official, revealed for the first time that “a portion of the money reportedly came from Libyan intelligence, delivered across the Italian border by a female operative.”

While the court did not definitively link these funds to Sarkozy’s campaign expenditures, the claims echo earlier allegations by Ziad Takieddine, who passed away in Beirut on September 23. He had maintained that he transported cash from Libyan officials to Paris. The murky trail of intermediaries underscores the complexity of the financial networks and how covert foreign influence can intersect with domestic politics, even when the legal system stops short of proving direct use.

The fallout from Sarkozy’s Libyan intervention extends far beyond financial scandals. By leading France – and later the entire NATO alliance – into the 2011 regime-change operation against Muammar Gaddafi, he helped dismantle Libya’s institutions, creating a vacuum that allowed jihadist networks to expand across the Sahel.

Fourteen years on, Libya has yet to recover from that invasion. The resulting instability triggered waves of displacement, forcing thousands of migrants to risk crossing the Mediterranean in search of safety. What began as a “humanitarian intervention” became a cascade of unintended consequences: weakened states, regional insecurity, and a humanitarian crisis that Europe continues to grapple with more than a decade later. Sarkozy’s decisions illustrate how foreign policy choices can have profound, long-term effects reaching far beyond the immediate political or financial sphere.

Sarkozy’s Libyan gamble continues to reverberate across Africa, where resentment toward France has deepened amid coups, political instability, and ongoing foreign interventions. From Mali and Niger to Burkina Faso, anti-French sentiment has surged, fuelled by perceptions of neo-colonial arrogance and broken promises.

At the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2023, Mali’s Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop recalled the 2011 UN Security Council authorization for NATO’s military intervention in Libya, noting that it went against the objections of African leaders and resulted in “consequences [that] have permanently destabilized this fraternal country as well as the entire region.”

The betrayal of Gaddafi, once considered a potential strategic ally, has become a symbol of Western leaders’ disregard for African sovereignty, illustrating how regime-change adventures can leave a continent grappling with the fallout for years. Sarkozy’s conviction for campaign finance violations, while significant in Paris, cannot erase the broader geopolitical upheaval his decisions unleashed – a reckoning with the enduring shadow of neo-colonial interference. Many believe French intelligence played a role in Gaddafi’s murder in order to cover up the campaign funding scandal.

Sarkozy’s conviction exposes the moral rot beneath the Western narrative of humanitarian intervention, but fails to hold it to account. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Libya to Syria, and Gaza, the idea that military action can be justified purely on humanitarian grounds has been repeatedly discredited. Leaders tout a responsibility to protect, yet too often, interventions serve strategic, political, or financial interests – leaving destruction, displacement, and death in their wake. The French court’s focus on illicit campaign funds underscores this hypocrisy: the misuse of money can be punished, but the staggering human cost of Western-led wars remains unaccounted for, a grim testament to the impunity enjoyed by those who orchestrate interventions under the banner of morality.

Ultimately, the this should provoke a broader conversation about the limits of Western accountability. Courts can target campaign finance violations, yet there remains no mechanism for holding leaders and the states they lead responsible for the wars they start under false pretences. The case exposes the selective nature of justice: minor financial improprieties are punishable, but bloodshed, state collapse, and mass suffering go unpunished. Sarkozy’s fall from grace is symbolic: it demonstrates that legal and moral scrutiny can touch even the most powerful, but only if the system chooses which crimes to pursue.

It also offers a rare glimpse of accountability in a system designed to shield Western power. It demonstrates that even presidents can fall when legal scrutiny catches their financial missteps – but it also exposes the blinding selectivity of justice. If genuine accountability is ever to exist, it must extend beyond euros to lives, decisions, and policies that shape the fate of nations. Until then, the structural impunity of Western power endures, leaving the world to bear the consequences of decisions for which no one is held accountable.

Source Notice:

This article is republished from
www.rt.com
on 2025-09-26 17:29:00.
Content and views belong to the original publisher, not UAE Today News.