| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Chirac’s casual ’no’ |
| 2003-03-12 |
| Commentary from the International Herald Tribune, heavily edited for length French leader plays down consequences Doesn't he always? On one hand, there was the French president telling his country, with a strong dose of diplomatic disingenuousness, that a French break with the United States would mean little to trans-Atlantic or French-American relations, and hardly deepen the European fractures that have traumatized its hopes for a unified future. Guess again, Popeye. On the other, there was Jacques Chirac's calm, almost pleasurable explanation Monday night on national television of France's intent to use its United Nations veto against an American-led war on Saddam Hussein. Isn't this typically French, to take both sides at the same time? The reposed manner and Chiracquian bonhommie looked authentic. But the president's assertion that a French veto of an American Security Council resolution enabling the United States to strike the Iraqi dictator "is not an exceptional phenomenon," indeed that "it's in the nature of things," seemed at a vast distance from reality. And it magnified Chirac's attempt to avoid discussion of France's particular responsibility in a process that has brought grave risk to both the integrity of the UN and NATO. "I know the Americans too well to imagine they could use such methods," Chirac said, brushing off a French journalist's question about whether there would be a price to pay for France's stance. Setting yourself up for a fall, aren't you? And more: "I'm perhaps one of the people who know best how (Europe) functions" he claimed, and said, "it won't be divided when the crisis is over" — this in reply to another interviewer's observation that brutal new internal disputes over who holds power in the European Union had shaken it since the Iraq dispute began. "If only those peasants would listen to what I say!" Chirac's effort at turning a Western institutional confrontation of proportions unknown since de Gaulle's decision to pull France out of NATO in the 1960s into a disagreement among friends went as far as insisting that after Saddam's defeat "France, very obviously, will have its place" as an invited participant in Iraq's reconstruction. This is almost self-parody. I can't get any snarkier than Chirac is to himself. If this was wishful thinking, it showed no regard for the State Department's assertions that a veto was "unfriendly" and would have unspecified serious consequences. If it was an attempt to smooth away an international perception that France was embarked on a single-minded campaign to thwart the United States on the tactically favorable terrain of the Security Council, then it did not sway a commentator like Henry Kissinger, who told French television, just after Chirac spoke, that he could not understand how an ally had created agitation throughout the world against America at a "vital period" for the United States. Simply, Chirac seemed to be telling the French the country could continue on its present policy line at odds with the United States at no cost. Both in the interest of diplomacy and perhaps in the nearly extinct hope of a French change of heart before a vote on the resolution, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have spoken — each once — of France's remaining a friend and ally. Once the hope is gone, watch out. Still, there were other responses from outside France, none minimizing, in Chirac's manner, the gravity of the circumstances. Tony Blair talked Tuesday about the dangerousness of a veto that would result in "dividing America from Europe." Friedbert Pflueger, the Christian Democrat foreign policy spokesman in the German Bundestag, said a veto would be part of a process splitting Europe apart and making it irrelevant. Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, he said, "could already count three victims: NATO, the UN, and a common European foreign policy." Four: all the people of Iraq. Perhaps curiously, alongside approval for the threat of a veto, there was a lot less willingness to go along with Chirac's don't-worry-be-happy description of the aftermath of France turning against the United States. This was a step, according to a French parliamentarian, that was likened on Feb. 26 by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to firing a bullet in the Americans' back. One of Chirac's interviewers made reference to the phrase on Monday night, but the president did not respond directly. To the contrary, drive-time commuters listening to commentary Tuesday morning on RTL, the radio station with the country's biggest audience, were told that the Chirac's approach presented enormous risks, would change France's relations with its allies, and, concerning the Americans, had elements that went beyond crisis into the realm of psychodrama and a possible divorce. By contrast, the padded edges of Chirac's approach challenged credibility with less frankness and a more muffled type of excess. What of the 200,000 U.S. soldiers already in place in the Gulf, Chirac asked rhetorically during his 40 television minutes Monday night. "But they've already won!" the president said. "I told that to President Bush not very long ago. It's highly probable if the Americans and the British hadn't deployed these large forces, Iraq would not have produced this more active cooperation that the inspectors demanded and are now getting. So, in reality, you can say that in so far as their strategy for disarming Iraq goes, the Americans have already reached their objective. They've won." "And so they should stay in the broiling desert forever! Look at me, I was broiled in the Algerian desert as a sub-leftenant, and see how I turned out!" |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 Want to know what to boycott to send a message to France? Look here: http://www.metrospy.com/boycott.htm |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-12 13:38:34 |
| #15 "The French are our friends, the Saudis are our friends, Islam is a religion of peace..." Yeah, GW has said all that but do you honestly, HONESTLY, thinks he believes that bullshit? Like it's been said here before, watch the hands not the mouth. Make a list George and when things settle down a bit, start checking it off. Make sure France and Chiraq are at the top. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-12 13:19:05 |
| #14 France has ingeniously shifted their economy over the years in such a way that it is nearly impossible to boycott French products. I looked around my house and couldn't find a single French product. I've been to France, no real desire to see it again. By product garbage for decades they have made themselves immune to my wraith the bastards! |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-12 12:40:39 |
| #13 The pure obnoxious and egocentrical way the Frenchies are thumbing their nose at the US is sickening. Even worse is the way Bush has handled the matter "they will still be our friends". Personally, I think Bush should make it extremely clear to the French that there will be hell to pay when this thing is over. But for the Frenchies, there would be no division in the world concerning the stance against Iraq. But the overly calm approach in which Chirac says he will excercise his veto and without US retribution is more than I can take |
| Posted by: Mustang 2003-03-12 12:28:24 |
| #12 So where are the French troops??? Not sure about the army, but half of the French navy was in the Carrribean last week. I saw them with my own two eyes. I guess the Med is too close to the action for them. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2003-03-12 12:15:04 |
| #11 Dissidentfrogman has this (partial post) Be advised that the teacher's book is nothing less than the manual destined to guide the teachers, civil servants of the Ministry of Education, in their duty. « "We'll demonstrate that there are two camps in the world: - One is imperialist and antidemocratic (USA) - The other is anti-imperialist and democratic (USSR), and we'll precise their goals: - World domination by crushing the anti-imperialist camp (USA) - Struggle against imperialism and fascism, reinforcement of democracy (USSR)." » Don't feel like disgorging yet? Okay, grab a doggy bag, a toilet bowl or your stepmother's sleeping bag 'cause I'm going to tell you when this book was published. Ready? Okay. 1980. 1-9-8-0. Go get a glass of water, wipe up your mouth. Sorry for the annoyance. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-12 12:12:43 |
| #10 Re: French role in post was Iraq - our quote should be "we will give France all the consideration it deserves" (similar to a put down Spock made to McCoy once |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-03-12 11:55:59 |
| #9 "France, very obviously, will have its place" as an invited participant in Iraq's reconstruction. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. (Wipes tears from eyes). You really think so, mon ami? And who's going to invite you? If I wasn't so deliriouly looking forward to watching you proven sooooo wrong, I'd like smack that arrogant smile off your smug face. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-12 10:52:00 |
| #8 What gets my blood boiling is that they keep saying the inspections are working because of the American & British (& Aussie) troops at Iraq's borders. So where are the French troops??? Practicing surrender tactics at home? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-12 10:51:54 |
| #7 What goes around comes around. Chiraq has made a major miscalculation and he and his country will pay dearly for that. I am sure that he has the faith and promise of his arab buddies. We 'Mercans will take alot of abuse, ridicule, etc. but there will come a saturation point, which is fast approaching. Chiraq has taken advantage of the UN forum and has milked it for all it is worth. With the promise of a French veto, there is absolutely no space for compromise. One does not negotiate with a gun to ones head. Somebody has to blink, back down, or be standing on the platform while the train pulls away. Bush does not sent a quarter of a million troops and all their equipment and the strain on our economy to the Iraqi theatre for nothing. This show is on the road and will be starting soon. With or without the UN, with or without the UK troops, and definitely without France. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-12 10:44:01 |
| #6 I really don't think NATO is a casualty. It's just being reworked as we "speak." Wonder what the rules are to get booted. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-12 10:33:07 |
| #5 tu3031, About the only consolation I find in this entire sorry state of affairs is that Chirac's "best friends" will one day thank their benefactor by doing something very awful to France. For the islamofascists France is just a means to conquer world domination. They'll deal with it after it served its purposes. Unfortunately, Chirac may not be around anymore when that day comes, since he is already 70 years old. |
| Posted by: Peter 2003-03-12 10:26:17 |
| #4 GW, make this pompous winbag bastard pay! Make him pay big! F**k France! When a bunch of Muslim scumbags put a plane into the Eiffel Tower, maybe he'll figure out how we feel. But we all know that will never happen. This guy is amongst their best friends. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-12 09:53:14 |
| #3 France's largest miscalculation was that Americans, like in the past, wouldn't notice or care about what's going on. But after 9-11 so many Americans took to the net and found so many sources of information that didn't need to go thru the CNN status-quo filter. Americans now are paying so much attention and they won't forget. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-12 09:00:45 |
| #2 Iraq owes France a lot of money. If a new Iraq goverment comes to power that dislikes France, how are they going to collect? |
| Posted by: bernardz 2003-03-12 04:17:17 |
| #1 Did you hear that? We won. Let's pack up and leave. How stupid does he think we are? Bastard. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-12 03:38:16 |