You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
France Opposes Proposal for U.S.-British Rule in Iraq
2003-03-22
Edited to stay on target.
The battle within Europe prompted by the war in Iraq raged on today as President Jacques Chirac of France vowed to oppose a British idea for a Security Council resolution that would give the United States and Britain the right to govern Iraq.
Sure, Jacques, just throw us out, okay?
The deepest fissure was between Britain and France, whose leaders seemed to be talking past each other about the postwar administration of Iraq. Rejecting an idea floated by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain for a resolution to give international authority to an occupation government in Baghdad, Mr. Chirac told a news conference, "This idea of a resolution seems to me to be a way of authorizing military intervention after the fact and so is not from my point of view fitting in the current situation."
"I will veto the opening prayer if it appears to authorize anything at all!"
Asked in a news conference whether he and his fellow leaders in Europe want a United Nations mandate over Iraq as soon as possible, Mr. Blair replied that a resolution was necessary, not just to address the potential humanitarian crisis in the country but also to authorize what he called "the post-Saddam civil authority" in Iraq.
But in the absence of one, I guess the powers that end up in Baghdad will just have to do the job. Think Jacques, think about what you really want in the end.
"I think there is a general agreement about the central involvement of the United Nations," Mr. Blair said. "Now exactly how that process takes place is precisely the issue that we discuss, but there is a common view now, not just amongst the Europeans but also with the United States, that it is important that we have a new United Nations resolution that authorizes that and that governs not merely the humanitarian situation but also the post-Saddam civil authority in Iraq."
Actually, I think any UN involvement in Iraq is an idea that should be smothered at birth. The wonderful job they're done running Paleostinian hellholes refugee camps should be sufficient reason to include them out in itself.
With the United Nations' role in postwar Iraq fading unclear, Security Council diplomats indicated after a meeting today that the oil-for-food program, which for the past few years has been the main source of UN revenues food for 60 percent of the Iraqi population, should be revived under the temporary authority of Secretary General Kofi Annan. The lucrative source of graft program was effectively suspended on Monday when United Nations workers were pulled from Iraq. Experts representing the 15 Council members are to meet Saturday to discuss Mr. Annan's March 19 proposal to reauthorize the program.
Can I vote "No way in hell"? Guess not, huh...
On Thursday, the European Union leaders signaled that they would resist an American-led administration for Iraq and in a joint statement called for the United Nations to play a central role. But Mr. Chirac seemed to think that a Security Council resolution would make the United States and Britain the de facto governors of Iraq. He added, "France would not accept a resolution tending to legitimize the military intervention and giving the Americans and British the power to administer Iraq."
As opposed to no resolution, which will leave, um, the US and UK in charge.
He said the League of United Nations was not the only body that could take responsibility for rebuilding Iraq, underscoring that he is willing to consider some sort of resolution for rebuilding the country but not one that would seem to legitimize the war or give the United States and Britain exceptional powers. "Whatever the results of the military operation," Mr. Chirac said, Iraq "must be rebuilt, and for that there is just one forum, the United States Nations."
Got a one-track mind, if any, doesn't he?
Later in Washington, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the United States was in contact with members of the Security Council "as to what is appropriate" for a postwar Iraqi authority. "I hope that France will want to be a partner in such an effort, but that remains to be seen," Mr. Powell said.
He said that nicer than I would have.
Britain, which has committed 45,000 troops to the Iraqi campaign, continued to hurl justified accusations that France sabotaged an effort to win international approval at the United Nations for the war. Asked about the plan by France, Germany and Belgium to hold their own defense meeting, Denis McShane, Britain's senior official on Europe, told French reporters, "The idea of a European defense based on Belgium and without England? I wonder how serious this could be."
Ah, the subtle British sense of humor.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Saw an article yesterday that made sense: "First Afghanistan, then Iraq, next: France!"

The best way to deal with France, Germany, et al, is to pull out of their countries - lock, stock and barrel (or keg, whichever you prefer). Their socialist governments will fold without being constantly propped up by American dollars buying their goods.

As for what happens after the war is over, that will be up to the victors, as it has always been.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-03-23 00:13:44  

#8  Chirac cant pass "this is illegal statement" but he can veto a "this occupation is authorized by the UNSC" which would have been nice to have for a number of reasons (add legitimacy in US and UK for when times get rough, add resources, add legitimacy in Iraq and the region). But by doing so he's passing up a chance to reconcile with the "anglosphere" and get out of the corner. Makes it appear more like he is really commited to a geopolitics of counter balance. Which may make sense for France, China, and even Russia, but probably not for Germany, which seems to have been more motivated by pacifism - not a reason not to cooperate in the aftermath. If France continues hardline in aftermath, i would expect (perhaps i am too optimistic?) growing strain between Paris and Berlin, already uncomfortable with French dissing of eastern europeans.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-22 21:10:10  

#7  Jacques doesn't seem to realize that a veto cannot *get* you anything, it can only deny something to someone else. The legal status of the invasion is moot, Sammy's regime is history, and *that's the way it will stay*. Any move to pass a "this is illegal" statement will be vetoed by the US and UK.

Simmer, simmer, simmer...
Posted by: mojo   2003-03-22 18:04:24  

#6  Don't get me wrong, I think we will prevail, but it seems clear that they will do their best to use this Clintonian tactic to try and (unsuccessfully) slap us around in the UN. It's all about the meaning of the word "consequences".

They will play to the same anti-US idiots that are out marching against the liberation of Iraq right now. It's sure to cause us headaches, but I agree with Alaska Paul (another article)..if we can hold firm, we can change the world into a better place.
Posted by: becky   2003-03-22 16:23:42  

#5  Even if France plays the 'illegal intervention' card and gets some international backing, who’s going to enforce it if the US doesn’t want to play along?
Posted by: John Phares   2003-03-22 13:19:28  

#4  On second thought I can. It is their remaining bargaining chip. Give us good deals, US or we will play this card.
Posted by: becky   2003-03-22 12:11:34  

#3  "France would not accept a resolution tending to legitimize the military intervention "

You watch, it's becoming obvious that his new little scheme is to claim the "gravest consequences" to the US for its illegal military intervention. Everything he does and says makes sense when viewed in this light. Russia and France greedily rejected US offers for fair and cooperative efforts to divide the "spoils" and now, being left out completely, they are looking for ways to make this war illegal, so their contracts in Iraq are still good.

Note the two other rantburg aticles today that support this....Russia Claims US Trying to Step on Economic Interests and Advisor Quits Foreign Office Over Legality of War.

I can't believe Putin is being so stupid and greedy. When will he get it that if he just sits down at the diplomatic table, we'll work out a better deal than he will ever get by playing all of these childish ego games. He can't see past the easy money in Iraq (and slapping Bush) to consider what's best in the long term for his country.
Posted by: becky   2003-03-22 10:46:25  

#2  Den Beste has a good analysis of how Jacques La Ver has painted himself into a very bad corner and can't back down...in addition, if he's removed as President, immunity's gone poof! , he's subject to indictment and possible jail over bribery charges. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy unless if that struttin' little peacock de Villepin went too
Posted by: Frank G   2003-03-22 07:25:14  

#1  Even if France plays the 'illegal intervention' card and gets some international backing, who’s going to enforce it if the US doesn’t want to play along?
Posted by: John Phares   3/22/2003 1:19:28 PM  

00:00