Why France is set to say 'non'

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

France seems more independently minded than other nations in their approach to the Iraq crisis.

Why France is set to say ‘non’

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,146653,00.html

By Grace Sung EUROPE CORRESPONDENT Oct 03, 2002

BRUSSELS - As the United States stepped up its push for a tough resolution against Iraq, France has made it clear that it is prepared to say ‘non’

Its opposition to the immediate use of force against Iraq is influenced not only by economic and political factors, but also by a desire to maintain stability in the Middle East and to respect international rules of law. Paris agrees that Iraq has to be disarmed but opposes giving a ‘blank cheque to military action’, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said.

Writing in the Le Monde daily, he acknowledged that Iraq remains a potential threat to stability but felt that the need of the hour is to combine ‘firmness with clear-sightedness’. ‘France in no way condones Baghdad’s activities, but any action aimed at regime change would be at variance with the rules of international law and open the door to all kinds of excesses,’ he said.

Pointing out that Baghdad had made known its acceptance of the unconditional return of international inspectors, he suggested that the weapons inspectors should be allowed to do their inspections. ‘Let us not forget that a larger number of these weapons were destroyed as a result of the inspections between 1991 and 1998 than during the Gulf War,’ he wrote.

Arguing in favour of a two-stage approach - wherein a first resolution would demand unrestricted access for the United Nations weapons inspections and a second, if needed, would authorise military force if Iraq does not comply - he said:** 'The two-step approach proposed by President Chirac makes it possible to maintain the international community’s unity, strengthen the legitimacy of the action and satisfy our demand for efficacy.** ‘Iraq must comply with international law; if it refuses to obey it, then all the appropriate conclusions will need to be drawn. This path is the only one capable of ensuring control at every stage of the crisis.’ The US prefers a single UN resolution, authorising force to disarm Baghdad.

France has traditionally taken an independent and often opposing stance to the US, and analysts say its insistence on a cautious approach towards Iraq is driven by a desire to both assert its global influence and protect its commercial interests. According to Dr Julian Lindley-French, a researcher at the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies in Paris, France is concerned about what happens after the final bullet is fired.

'The question is not really what happens during the war. We all know America will win. ‘It’s a question of security and governance. What do you do when the final bullet has been fired? How do you peacekeep and restore a credible and effective government in Iraq?’ These, he said, are issues about which the French are concerned and uncertain about whether the Americans have thought about it thoroughly. Pointing to the economic interests, he said: ‘Of course there are economic interests at stake, particularly oil.’ French diplomatic and business ties with Iraq go back some 30 years, and today France is Iraq’s top trade and investment partner in the West.

French commercial interests in the country total US$4.3 billion (S$7.7 billion), while bilateral trade reached US$1.5 billion last year. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in the country, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop various oil fields. Like other Europeans, France also fears that an attack on Iraq would destabilise the Middle East and jeopardise international cooperation. Green Party leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit said plans for a war would be ‘catastrophic and fatal for the Middle East and the world’.

2

If the US took a similiar stance 50 years ago, they would be eating kraut in Paris today. France yearns for its glory years of centuries past and still has delusions of being a world power. Truth be known, their reasons to not attack are just as self-centered and self-serving as the Americans' reasons are to attack.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Truth be known, their reasons to not attack are just as self-centered and self-serving as the Americans' reasons are to attack.
[/QUOTE]

yep.

4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
If the US took a similiar stance 50 years ago, they would be eating kraut in Paris today. France yearns for its glory years of centuries past and still has delusions of being a world power. Truth be known, their reasons to not attack are just as self-centered and self-serving as the Americans' reasons are to attack.
[/QUOTE]

Why should france allow its foreign policy to be effected by the political overtures of other nations.. in the Iraq issue it has taken an independent line which it has every right to do so. As for wanting to become a Superpower, that is not the reason behind Frances position on the Iraq issue. At the end of the day it is safeguarding its national interests and supporting the role of the UN, fearing that another attack on Iraq would destabilise the Middle East.

5

The French were quite willing to goosestep to the music played by Adolph Hitler too. The Vichy government was not necessarily an aberation for the French people. The French have no trouble being friends with another fascist dictator providing they receive some benefits from such relationship. This is particularly true if they can also build their own self-esteem by opposing the US who they can never forgive for liberating them in WWII.

6

That's it, I'm not buying anymore of their dressing. What's the Italian position?

7

Hitler and Saddam? Please give hitler some credit. He was a meglomaniac who massacred millions. Saddam is a common thug. He is not a threat. Just a sad individual who belongs in hell ASAP. However the article states something that is very true. In all of Europes wisdom and tragic past, they know that rules are made to be obeyed and followed not broken. Of course working with the gun ho and "we can do everything and anything we want" american culture, rules and laws mean nothing unless the US can use them. Like the UN. The US doesnt have to pay its dues. It can hold the UNSC hostage and blackmail the UN, but when it needs a resolution it comes around asking for one.

France and the EU nations request and require in some cases that laws be obeyed. That is why they are emphasizing that existing resolutions be implemented and due process take its course for a new one after all diplomatic methods are exhausted. I would love to see saddam six feet under, but with International law being followed. The US does not follow these laws. Heck it doesnt follow any laws unless they are warped cooked up ideas back from the cold war era.

**
[quote]
The French have no trouble being friends with another fascist dictator providing they receive some benefits from such relationship.**
[/quote]

The same can be said about the US. Would you like me to repeat Roosevelts famous quote? But one thing about the french, they learn from their mistakes. The US just makes them again.

8

Vive la Revolution.

9

The USA is quite shamelessly pursuing its own national interests, in disregard of almost all (bar one or two) nations in the world. France is pursuing its national interests, but more in line with the views of the vast majority of the world nations. There lies a crucial difference that makes the US government looking so arrogant, selfish and no doubt hypocritcal. The Americans have a lot to learn from the French and Chinese when it somes to world diplomacy.

10

France has shifted away from its policies of the last few years and is trying to return to the World stage, seeing unilateral action by the US as dangerous for the world. From the article: “In the Iraq crisis, Chirac and his Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin see a make-or-break chance to restore French influence in a world dominated by the United States”

Jacques is back, putting France on world stage again

PARIS, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Jacques is back. By Tom Heneghan

President Jacques Chirac, freed from five years of power sharing with his Socialist rivals, has returned to the diplomatic stage in force by putting France at the centre of United Nations negotiations over a war on Iraq. His decision to place France at the heart of the Security Council wrangling was the most prominent of recent foreign policy changes including a cautious return to intervening in Africa and a bid to restart the stalled French-German partnership.

This activity is more than just a response to his election victories last spring, which liberated him from a cumbersome “cohabitation” that often sidelined France in foreign affairs. In the Iraq crisis, Chirac and his Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin see a make-or-break chance to restore French influence in a world dominated by the United States.

“The decisions to be taken tomorrow will shape the new face of the world,” Villepin wrote in the daily Le Monde last week, when a Security Council resolution on Iraq seemed imminent. “The way we handle the Iraq crisis will influence the spirit and the form (of this new world). Collective security will depend on the international community’s determination to ensure that (international) law is respected.”

SECURITY COUNCIL SEAT THE KEY

The key to this drive is France’s seat among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the most prominent vestige of its former role as a great world power.

As the United States began building up for a possible war on Iraq with or without U.N. approval, Chirac deftly proposed a two-step approach that placed France in between the pro-war camp of the U.S. and Britain and wavering members Russia and China.

Instead of Washington’s single Security Council resolution threatening Iraq with war, he proposed a first resolution demanding the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq and a second one threatening consequences if they cannot work unhindered. Chirac kept his options open by refusing to say clearly what those consequences would be, even though he has hinted strongly that France could go to war if the U.N. so decides.

This approach, which Washington’s moderates like Secretary of State Colin Powell could accept but Pentagon hardliners reject, has won support from Russia and several European countries keen not to allow the United States to decide alone when and if an attack on Iraq should go ahead.

In this game of high-stakes poker, France has circulated informal proposals among Security Council members and some diplomats said Paris seemed likely to submit a rival resolution if Washington insisted on its threatening text.

NEW MAJORITY, NEW POSSIBILITIES

Chirac’s new activism reflects the changes in France following his landslide reelection in May and the thumping victory for his centre-right allies in the parliamentary election that followed in June. That second poll freed him of the “cohabitation” power- sharing with the former left-wing cabinet that forced him to harmonise policies with rivals who sometimes disagreed about France’s role and did not want to let him steal the limelight.

“It’s so much easier now – he decides and that’s it,” one diplomat remarked. France also reacts more quickly to events now than it did over the past five years. With a centre-right government, Chirac was able to appoint his former chief of staff Villepin to replace Socialist foreign minister Hubert Vedrine, who was more critical of the United States and wanted France to reduce its role in Africa.

Villepin, who once worked at the French embassy in Washington and understands Americans well, has taken a more flexible approach to Washington and shares Chirac’s preference for a higher French profile in Africa. Chirac’s initial forays on the world stage, during the two years of conservative rule before the left-wing won the 1997 parliamentary election, were marked by brusque decisions that angered even some of his closest partners.

He caused an international outcry by resuming nuclear arms tests and confounded his German neighbours by scrapping military conscription without even telling them. The move fuelled calls to scrap conscription there, much to Bonn’s chagrin. His post-reelection relations with the traditional partner Germany started off on the wrong foot when he all but endorsed challenger Edmund Stoiber against Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, with whom he has clashed mightily in the past four years.

Once Schroeder won his own re-election on September 22, however, Chirac hosted a dinner for him and got to work on forging a new initiative for a bilateral position on the main issues facing the European Union in the coming years.

11

*A senior Russian official says a new United Nations resolution on Iraq should not require the use of force and should not include measures Iraq cannot fulfill. *

UN Should Not Require Force in Iraq, says Senior Russian Official](VOA - Voice of America English News) From Voice of America News

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov says **a U.N. draft resolution on Iraq drawn up by France closely mirrors Russia’s position. His comments were published by the Russian news agency Interfax. Mr. Fedotov criticized a tougher draft resolution proposed by the United States that calls for more intrusive weapons inspections of Iraq and the use of force if Iraq does not comply. **The Russian official said the U.S. proposal contains demands Iraq cannot satisfy.

Interfax quoted Mr. Fedotov as saying a possible U.N. resolution should include three elements. It should be based on previous U.N. resolutions, should not require a use of force, and should not include elements Iraq cannot fulfill. **The deputy foreign minister also repeated Russia’s assertion that weapons inspectors should be allowed back into Iraq as soon as possible. **

Monday, President George Bush condemned Saddam Hussein as a “murderous tyrant” who may be planning attacks against the United States. he Bush administration has been pushing the United Nations to take action against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Russia is one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council with veto power over a new resolution. The other permanent members are France, the United States, Great Britain and China.

**Mr. Fedotov also said Russia encouraged France to include in its resolution a provision that would link the resumption of inspections with the eventual lifting of sanctions against Iraq. **The United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait in 1990. It was then driven out by a U.N. coalition. Last month, facing growing international pressure, Iraq said it was willing to have weapons inspectors return to the country.

12

I wonder how many independent thinking countries will refuse to bow to US pressure which advocates war.

13

France raises stakes for US with hint of UN veto](http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/ao/Qiraq-un-france.RYua_DJK.html) Agence France-Presse 21 Jan 03

PARIS, Jan 21 (AFP) - **France’s hint that it might use its UN Security Council veto to stymie an internationally approved war on Iraq has significantly raised the stakes for the United States, which has been trying to coax a diplomatic consensus for its ambitions of “regime change” in Baghdad.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin’s blunt statement Monday at the Security Council that “nothing justifies cutting off inspections to enter into war and uncertainty” and warning of a “dead-end” if plans for war were pursued raises the prospect of a split in the Council. “Using force like that would only be a last resort assuming all other possibilities are exhausted,” he said, adding that France was ready to “go to the end” over this issue.**

Among the five permanent, veto-wielding Council members, France, China and Russia have indicated they want to see UN inspections in Iraq run their course, placing them in stark contrast to the United States and Britain, which have been building up military forces in the Gulf in preparation for a possible conflict.

The last time France used its UN veto was in December 1989 when it joined the United States and Britain in blocking a resolution condemning the US invasion of Panama. The last time it used the veto against the United States was during the Suez crisis of 1956 when Washington opposed the Franco-British campaign.

The increasing pressure on Washington from France and other UN Security Council members follows visits to Paris last week by chief UN inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei. French President Jacques Chirac said after meeting the two that “we have to give them the time they need.”

In a follow-up interview in Monday’s Le Figaro newspaper, Chirac said: "Military intervention is only legitimate if it is founded upon a Security Council decision, which can only be taken based on the inspectors’ report. “Obviously, if the United States were to intervene solely, we would be forced to remark that this would be on the fringes of the international community.”

Nevertheless, although the threat of the French veto was made implicit, Chirac and de Villepin have been careful not to pronounce the word, leaving diplomatic room to manoeuvre should, for example, the UN inspectors find clearly incriminating evidence of hidden weapons of mass destruction in coming weeks.

While dispensing words of caution against hasty US military action, Chirac has also repeatedly urged Baghdad to better cooperate with the inspections, and has said that France will “shoulder its responsibilities” as required. The delivery of France’s increasingly clear message to the United States comes just before Blix’s progress report to the Security Council next Monday.

Washington has sent signals that it will interpret the update as a key moment in its plans for Iraq, although Blix and ElBaradei have said they intend to ask for “several months” more to continue their inspections.Although the United States and Britain have the military might to reach their objectives in Baghdad, without UN authorisation the legitimacy of their campaign would be questioned.

As both France and Washington are aware, one of the possible results of such a go-it-alone approach would also be a weakened role for the UN Security Council in future crises – a damaging outcome for all members, and the world at large.

14

I can't remeber where reading an article about France and few other nations (Russia, Germany..etc) buying oil from Iraq under the table.

I personally believe that "IF" US takes over Iraq everyone else will be buying oil in US prices from them instead of buying oil in Iraqi currency. Which I'm sure is not a big deal for US to take over Iraq. That will create more hassle for everyone else.

Other than that everyone is thinking who is going to be next after Iraq. Cuz game has just begun...

15

France will keep this up to the last minute,then they will change their minds when they know it is inevitable,for fear of losing out on reconstruction of Iraq and trade links.

16

Good. The Arab League is not worth the paper it’s written on, it’s up to the EU to present a concerted pillar of opposition.
EU allies unite against Iraq war, BBC, 22 January 2003

The leaders of France and Germany have pledged to intensify their co-operation against a US-led war against Iraq. The decision was announced in Paris, at a joint news conference by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on the 40th anniversary of the two countries’ post-war friendship treaty. In an example of the Franco-German opposition, the Nato alliance was unable to approve a US request to advance military planning in the event of war.

…] Speaking on French television, President Chirac said “an extra delay is necessary” to give the weapons inspectors more time to search Iraq for banned arms. He said he backed a request by the UN’s chief nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, for an extension of “several months” for the inspectors to carry out their work. Earlier, Mr Chirac said France and Germany “have the same judgement on this crisis” - the decision had to be taken by the Security Council and everything ought to be done to avoid war.

He said France was co-ordinating its positions “closely” with Germany - to which it hands over the presidency of the Security Council next month. Germany has indicated that it will not support a UN resolution in support of military action. Mr Chirac did not say whether France would use its power of veto. The BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says Mr Chirac was exaggerating slightly when he said their views were the same. He says Mr Schroeder has abandoned Germany’s former automatic loyalty to the United States to take up an even firmer position than France - traditionally Washington’s most awkward Western ally.

On Wednesday, Nato ambassadors declined to agree to an American request to advance military planning, particularly to protect Turkey - the only Nato member bordering Iraq. Reports said ambassadors agreed in principle, but France and Germany led other European allies in opposing the timing for such a request.

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

On Wednesday, Nato ambassadors declined to agree to an American request to advance military planning, particularly to protect Turkey - the only Nato member bordering Iraq. Reports said ambassadors agreed in principle, but France and Germany led other European allies in opposing the timing for such a request.
[/QUOTE]

Salaam Nadia, it is nice to read your and other friends posts after a long time. I only want to say about this subject that they need Turkish army, Turkish army does not need them. They took Turkey to NATO only for their own security coz Turkish army is the second biggest force in NATO.

18

Walaikum Assalaam wa Rehmatullah, Galatasaray.. Long time no see :) How are you doing?

Thank you for sharing that, i understand your points regarding the Turkish army. Do you mind if i ask you something - i am not certain if it is possible for yourself to gauge but what is the general mood amongst the Turkish people vis-a-vis this recent decision to reject US requests to advance military planning? Was there much coverage of this over there? (i have no particular reason for asking, just wondering about it).

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Walaikum Assalaam wa Rehmatullah, Galatasaray.. Long time no see :) How are you doing?

Thank you for sharing that, i understand your points regarding the Turkish army. Do you mind if i ask you something - i am not certain if it is possible for yourself to gauge but what is the general mood amongst the Turkish people vis-a-vis this recent decision to reject US requests to advance military planning? Was there much coverage of this over there? (i have no particular reason for asking, just wondering about it).
[/QUOTE]

Dear friend, Turkey is an interesting country. It is impossible to find such a country in where people hate USA policies a lot but country is the biggest ally of USA. USA is Turkey's only ally, may be with it's close connections to USA it shares same property with Pakistan. At the moment in all universities there are huge protests against USA. The costs of USA flags increased coz ppl are looking for USA flags to burn in protests:) In here, there are 3 main student groups at universities. Nationalists (greywolves), Leftists , islamists. These groups fight each other in all universities everyday. But they only unite in one subject, that is having anti-usa policy. The only common opinion that turks share is HATING USA. Now all student groups do protest in common in streets. Leftists are against propabable USA operation coz they regard USA as the symbol of imperialism and capitalism. Nationalists are against coz Turkey lost 100 billion dollars in previous gulfwar and USA did not compansate this damage allthough Turkey helped them and also they regard turks as the responsable of eastern nations' safety because of historical ottoman mission. Islamists are against because they say Turkey must support Iraq because of muslim brotherhood. Ppl in streets are against coz in a such operation Turkey will have again an economic crisis also Iraqis are neighboor and share close history, culture. But Turkey is in need of USA. It has got into debts from IMF. If IMF cut the credits Turkey will have again economic crisis. Also The foreign companies in Turkey are all from USA. Besides EU rejected Turkey in last copenhagen summit and turkey became alone again and since islamic world is against turkey, all it's neighboors are enemy to turkey and EU does not trust Turkey coz they regard turkey as representative of USA, Turkey needs USA. But since Turkey's stragetic geography, it is a key country and USA also needs Turkey to have north front in ýraq operation. Turkey is resisiting to USA requests coz they know if 80000 usa soldier is settled in Turkey this means it will be impossible to get them away after operation and Turkey will be entire base of USA like katar and kuwayt. New government wants to be ally with EU, also to make good relations with his neighboors like Greece. Also to make good relations with muslim countries. Turkey says if USA soldiers enter north iraq, they will establish kurdistan which will threaten turkey's unity, so they say to usa "we will behave independenly in propable war and we will put twice times of USA soldiers in north iraq because we do not trust you". We will put these soldiers especially near kirkuk and mousul in where turkomans are more crowded than kurds and oil places. Because these oil places will be used for dick cheney's and for others' companies and for financing new kurdistan. This means, Turkey has a plan that contradicts usa plan and this may lead a conflict between turkey and usa soldiers. Turkey send his ministries to iraq newly to make trade aggrements and to demonstrate we want to make good relations with you. The head of parliament insulted to USA ambassador after usa embassy called him to embassy to give knowledge abou iraq. He said "I am head of turkish parliament, he is only an ambassador; in normal way he must come here"; then prime minister Abdullah said to usa diplomats "we are not kingdom or emirate that you can use our territory as if yours." But the real power is not government in Turkey. So he can not survive his independent policy in my opinion. Last weekend the head of british army came turkey to get permission to get british army near iraq border in turkey territory. Government said:"you drove away us from iraq 80 years ago by force and you created iraq only to exploit it now how you dare to propose a such a suggestion now? As you see USA wants to use Turkey against iraq like he did in pakistan against afghanistan, but now there is a government who wants to make friendship with muslim countries and prefere EU to USA and also even is ready to discuss cyprus subject with greeks and try to make good relations wth greek and have very good relations with kurds. But in my opinion Turkey will not reject all of USA's demands coz he does not want to lose his ally. So he will pursue a balanced policy. Also everyone knows how USA eradicates government who is against USA. Also even arabic countries are more dependent to USA, hoW turkey can survive such a independent policy when he is also not liked by arabian countries? Take care friend, These were all what I see in streets and what I read on newspapers....

20

Good for France. Even most Americans don't support this war if it is done unilaterally. Someone needs to stop Bush and Rumsfeld on this issue - they are dead wrong.