After Iraq, France faces sanctions

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

By Julio Godoy

PARIS: France is facing US economic, military, and diplomatic sanctions as punishment for its opposition to the war in Iraq, according to official sources.

The US government has downgraded its participation at Salon de l’Aironautique, the French air show next month. The US government has also excluded France, officially its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ally, from military exercises due later this year.

French military representatives have been barred from meetings in California on links between Galileo, the European satellite programme, and the Global Positioning System, which is the US military scheme of satellite identification, and which also serves NATO.

These measures were decided late April as a part of a campaign to punish France for its opposition to the US war against Iraq, officials say. “This anti-French campaign includes a disinformation campaign in which anonymous government officials in Washington spread lies about France,” an official said.

French ambassador in Washington Jean-David Levitte denounced this disinformation campaign in a letter to US President George W. Bush. Levitte accused publications such as The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post of joining the campaign.

“I would like to invite your attention to the disturbing, unacceptable nature of this disinformation campaign, whose aim is to hurt France’s image and to deceive the public,” Levitte said.

The disinformation has included false claims that France gave former Iraqi officials diplomatic passports, and that it had recently delivered components for chemical weapons to Saddam’s regime.

The official campaign in the US is being backed by a new business war. US companies like Boeing and the oil giant Exxon have launched a drive to push French competitors out of the market.

Exxon and Boeing recently won contracts in Qatar that had been sought also by their European rivals Total and Airbus. The US universities Princeton and Cornell have won contracts to develop university campuses in Qatar capital Doha against French competition.

More Details Here

What exactly is “criteria” of “sanctions”? Anyone acting against US instructions/“interests”?

2

Vous jouez, vous payez.

3

Re: After Iraq, France faces sanctions

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
**What exactly is "criteria" of "sanctions"? *
[/QUOTE]

There is no criteria for imposing them, dost. Jaisa bhi mood chalay, ussi din kissi pai sanctions laga do.

The criteria for lifting them is more straightforward, however - only lift the embargo subsequent to ensuring that millions of civilians have died. That way, one is able to best illustrate the benevolent intent behind lifting the embargo.

Regarding France - they hopped onboard with the latest Council Resolution (yesterday, the one that Syria wasn't present for at the vote), so i am not certain to what extent they will be financially punished. Perhaps, my guess would be only the ensuing months will show us that answer...?

4

^ essentially "I don't like you, I slap sanctions on you" and/or "You didn't sit with me, I slap sanctions on you" ?

5

Oh, please. These things aren't "sanctions." They are repercussions and punishment to be sure. Hardball foreign relations and hardball diplomacy at there best.

France knew when it chose to oppose US policies and US initiatives vis a vis Iraq that there would be a reaction to its stance. They hoped the positive reaction from countries also opposing US policy would benefit them to a greater extent than the negative reaction from the US and its supporters would hurt them. As the French so often are, they were wrong. It's time for them to go through a prolonged period of sucking up to the US to get back what they have lost.

6

France screwed up the plans, if they would have came on board it could have intimidated Saddam enough to step down without a bomb being dropped or a bullet being fired. These repercussions should come as no surprise to France.

7

Changez_Like, Yes, something along those lines. i would venture to state it must also be countries that are running low on allies - or at least, strong allies. Iraq had none, Cuba had none, and of course no European leader (certainly not Blair who is becoming the unofficial American foreign affairs minister) is going to stick its neck out to criticize the imposing of sanctions on France. Not even Schroeder would go that far to assist France.

No Arab country was willing to engage in the same alliances for Iraq, hence it was easier for the latter to become a useful target.

8

**

Well at least that’s an honest statement :k:

9

Here are a couple of good ones!

A French Food service company that has an $880 million contract to run food service for the US military. This is gonna go bye-bye.

“Fifty-nine House members, led by U.S. Rep. James Kingston (R-Ga.), who wrote the letter, are calling for Rumsfeld to terminate the Pentagon’s work with Sodexho, including an eight-year, $881 million contract to feed U.S. Marines at 55 facilities, because of France’s position on the war in Iraq.”
http://gazette.net/200314/business/news/152351-1.html

And reevaluating a German sealant used to seal the Pentagon walls:

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - The Defense Department, prodded by a lawmaker angry at German opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, said on Tuesday it was weighing whether to stick with its chosen German-based product for a potential $4.3 million contract to seal the Pentagon’s exterior concrete walls.

The chief engineer of the building’s 20-year, $3-billion renovation project, Georgine Glatz, has been comparing the sealant with a rival made in the complainant lawmaker’s hometown in Ohio, said a department spokesman, Brett Eaton.

Given the rise in the Euro French and German products will be more expensive, and search engines are probably working overtime in the Pentagon to identify every product used, company dealt with, and contract rendered. Why should American taxpayer money go to France and Germany under these circumstances?

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
....
Why should American taxpayer money go to France and Germany under these circumstances?
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was only "private" concerns that were closing doors on "French" and "German" and people supported saying "its not government doing it", and now that govt has started it people are defending "its the right thing".

I repeat someone's question: when do you know when a liar stops lying?

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Given the rise in the Euro French and German products will be more expensive, and search engines are probably working overtime in the Pentagon to identify every product used, company dealt with, and contract rendered. Why should American taxpayer money go to France and Germany under these circumstances?
[/QUOTE]

What sort of amazes me about this discussion is the implicit viewpoint that some people have that somehow France (or Germany or Russia) is entitled to business contracts with the US, entitled to have the US participate in its airshow, entitled to join in military exercises with the US, entitled to have Americans drink their wine or eat their cheese, etc. And, if these things don't happen, the absence of their occurence constitutes a "sanction."

People make decisions every single day of their lives about where and how they wish to spend their dollars. I'd rather buy a copier from a business where I have friends working or owning the business than from businesses where I don't know anyone or, worse, dislike someone. I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to US businesses than foreign businesses. As a second choice, I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to businesses in other countries that are friendly and supportive of what the US is doing rather than being opposed or making things more difficult.

It just mystifies me that some people think this behavior is wrong, bad or should be subject to criticism.

12

"What sort of amazes me about this discussion is the implicit viewpoint that some people have that somehow France (or Germany or Russia) is entitled to business contracts with the US, entitled to have the US participate in its airshow, entitled to join in military exercises with the US, entitled to have Americans drink their wine or eat their cheese, etc. And, if these things don't happen, the absence of their occurence constitutes a "sanction." "

Absolutely!

Why the contract to feed the Marines would just about spend all of Myvoices' tax payment!

Let's face it, France Germany and Russia were backing Iraq to protect their business interests. For them to imagine that their business interests might not be damaged by their behavior is just plain stupid!. as UTD pointed out, if the US, France, Germany and Russia had remained united, the chances of Saddam reading the writing on the wall and leaving peacefully were greatly enhanced. Once he thought that the US would lose it's nerve, or that some compromise might be in the works, even after the liberation had begun, then he became more determined to stay in power.

Frankly California wine is just as good as French whine, and is getting cheaper as the euro goes up. I have not bought French wine since this whole thing blew up. On the other hand I bought some English and Australian beer the other day, just cause I like em'. Don't underestimate the combined effects of millions of Americans making similar decisions.

And by the way, throw Belgium into this pot too. I say move NATO headquarters to Poland, or Spain.

13

**Originally posted by myvoice: *
What sort of amazes me about this discussion is the implicit viewpoint that some people have that somehow France (or Germany or Russia) is entitled to business contracts with the US, entitled to have the US participate in its airshow, entitled to join in military exercises with the US, entitled to have Americans drink their wine or eat their cheese, etc. And, if these things don't happen, the absence of their occurence constitutes a "sanction." *

The discussion is not "entitlement", but "discarding/removing/eliminating" perhaps. If people find French products bad sure don't use it, I am all for it. Also, people should maintain their ideas as my last post says.

Edit: When you have "contract" then I'd think that you are obliged to fulfil it. For new contracts you do have option to not consider a party as you wish.

*People make decisions every single day of their lives about where and how they wish to spend their dollars. I'd rather buy a copier from a business where I have friends working or owning the business than from businesses where I don't know anyone or, worse, dislike someone. I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to US businesses than foreign businesses. As a second choice, I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to businesses in other countries that are friendly and supportive of what the US is doing rather than being opposed or making things more difficult. *

This para makes more sense than first one.

14

France should also commence sanctions against the US.

That would mean banning burgers and ........................ that's about it I think from the US.

In reality what can the US do to really hurt France economically?

Not a lot!

15

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
What sort of amazes me about this discussion is the implicit viewpoint that some people have that somehow France (or Germany or Russia) is entitled to business contracts with the US, entitled to have the US participate in its airshow, entitled to join in military exercises with the US, entitled to have Americans drink their wine or eat their cheese, etc. And, if these things don't happen, the absence of their occurence constitutes a "sanction." *

The discussion is not "entitlement", but "discarding/removing/eliminating" perhaps. If people find French products bad sure don't use it, I am all for it. Also, people should maintain their ideas as my last post says.

Edit: When you have "contract" then I'd think that you are obliged to fulfil it. For new contracts you do have option to not consider a party as you wish.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. The discussion has nothing to do with violating any contracts that the US has with the French. There was no contract to participate at a particular level in the air show. There was no existing contract giving France the right to participate in the military exercise. Simply, we participated in the airshow to a greater extent in the past and included the French in military exercises before. Now, we're not and they're complaining. And people can choose not to drink French wine or not to eat French cheese for any reason they want. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bad product before you can choose not to use it.

The issue is that because we behaved in a particular way in the past (for a variety of reasons), some people seem to think that they are entitled to have us act the same way in the future.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
**People make decisions every single day of their lives about where and how they wish to spend their dollars. I'd rather buy a copier from a business where I have friends working or owning the business than from businesses where I don't know anyone or, worse, dislike someone. I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to US businesses than foreign businesses. As a second choice, I'd rather have my government give money and contracts to businesses in other countries that are friendly and supportive of what the US is doing rather than being opposed or making things more difficult. *

This para makes more sense than first one.
[/QUOTE]

Glad you think it makes sense. It actually flows quite naturally from the first paragraph. :)

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
France should also commence sanctions against the US.

That would mean banning burgers and ........................ that's about it I think from the US.

In reality what can the US do to really hurt France economically?

Not a lot!
[/QUOTE]

Most third world economies are agro based but France is not a 3rd world country, French are 3 percent Agro and wine is a fraction of that. They can export one Rafael to offset the balance. This move was more for the show.