Standing with the majority of the world inhabitants and with once principals and laws despite strong diplomatic pressure to do otherwise is now called being "woobly"?
Roger Cohen thinks so:
Adenauer and de Gaulle must be turning in their graves. Here was Germany standing wobbly with Brazil, Russia, India and China — and against its closest allies, France and the United States — in the U.N. vote on Libyan military action. And here was France providing America’s most vigorous NATO support.
To me it looked more like the U.S. supporting Sarkozy's personal ambitions but what do I know.
I also thought that diplomacy in a crisis is the art to achieve ones nations interests without the costs and sorrow of war. That to me is "a high point of diplomacy". But according to Cohen a high point of diplomacy is waging a war of aggression, killing people, instead of helping to achieve a peaceful outcome:
We stand at a high point in French postwar diplomacy and a nadir in German. There were strong arguments on either side of a Libyan intervention, but with a massacre looming in Benghazi, Germany had to stand with its allies. Angela Merkel has proved herself more a maneuverer than a leader. Germany often conveys the sense that it now resents the agents of its postwar rehabilitation — the European Union and NATO.
Waging a totally unnecessary war of aggression because of an assumed massacre, which was very unlikely to take place, is crime. France attacking Libya while its interest are less migration from North Africa, free flow of energy resources and fewer radical Islamists is worse. It is a blunder of Napolean proportion.
(Daniel Larison's has a longer recommandable take of the Cohen piece.)