| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Commentary: do the French (and Germans) have something to hide? |
| 2003-01-23 |
| Why are the French, after seeming to have endorsed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, suddenly aligining themselves with the Germans and against the impending military action against Iraq? Analyst Max Boot, writing in the L.A. Times, suggests it is a combination of greed and nationalist pride: Its first motive is crassly commercial: France has about $1.5 billion in contracts with the current Iraqi government and doesn't want it overthrown for fear that a more democratic regime might take its business elsewhere. Its second motive is essentially wounded national pride. France, a noted poet recently wrote, "used to have the ability to inspire princes and kings" but now "comes the time when no one listens to her anymore and the universe turns without her, except when it judges her with spite or commiseration." This writer suggested that the solution was for France to adopt "a humble and global approach." Those sentiments are found in a best-selling French book called "The Cry of the Gargoyle." Its author is now foreign minister of the republic. It is hard to see anything humble about De Villepin's grandstanding Monday, but it was certainly "global": France is taking advantage of Franklin Roosevelt's dispensation -- a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council -- to maximize its influence at the expense of the "hyperpower." The NYT's William Safire believes that French President Jacques Chirac stabbed us in the back as part of an EU power play with the Germans: Chirac had made a deal with the U.S. last fall: we agreed to postpone the invasion of Iraq until after U.N. inspectors had been jerked around long enough to satisfy the world street's opinion, and in return France would not demand a second U.N. resolution before allied forces overthrew Saddam. . . Then Schröder, reliant on his militantly antiwar Greens, made Chirac an offer he could not refuse: to permanently assert Franco-German dominance over the 23 other nations of Continental Europe. In a stunning power play in Brussels, Germany and France moved to change the practice of having a rotating presidency of the European Council, which now gives smaller nations influence, to a system with a long-term president. This Franco-German czar of the European Union would dominate a toothless president of the European Commission, chosen by the European Parliament. Little guys of Europe hollered bloody murder this week, but will find it hard to resist the Franco-German steamroller. France then had to repay Schröder by double-crossing the U.S. at the U.N. That explains France's startling threat to veto a new U.N. resolution O.K.'ing the invasion of Iraq — a second resolution that France had promised Colin Powell would not be needed. Blogger Steven Den Beste has yet another theory, one which seems straight out of a Ken Follet or Tom Clancy novel, and yet, somehow, the most plausible: Let's do some supposing. Suppose we (the UK and US) do ignore all the pressure and last-minute finagling and do actually attack Iraq, which I think now is virtually certain. Suppose we win, which is absolutely certain. And suppose, once we've done so, and have occupied Iraq and have full (really full, not UN full) access to Iraq's records and can truly find what they have, that we find that everything we've been saying about their WMDs is really true; that they have chem and bio weapons and banned delivery systems, and are near to developing nukes, which I also think is extremely likely. One more and the most important: suppose that the records also show that during the 1990's companies in France or Germany (or both) actively and deliberately broke the sanctions and sold equipment and supplies to Iraq which helped it to create these things, and that the governments of Germany and France knew and approved of this and actively helped. That's the biggest and most speculative suppose. On that I can't place a probability; there's no way of knowing right now whether this happened, or whether such records will be found. But I don't consider the possibility of this to be vanishingly small. I think the chance is decent that some such illegal sales to Iraq took place, but I can't say how likely it is that the governments there actively approved of it, or at least deliberately ignored it (which is bad enough). That's the wild card. But we're supposing now, and so what we've supposed is that after we conquer Iraq we come into possession of undisputable proof of treachery by the German and/or French governments, who are supposedly our allies. Den Beste speculates that the governments of France and Germany may be trying to derail the war precisely because they want to cover up their own (or their citizens' own) participation in Saddam's WMD programs. He continues: The first question our governments would face is whether to reveal it. There's a case to be made for keeping it secret and using it for blackmail. (Which is why I will become extraordinarily suspicious if there's a notable change in tone and behavior from either or both nations about two months after the war ends.) But if such information existed and were revealed, either deliberately or because it couldn't be concealed, then what? I think at that point that anything resembling formal alliance would have to end. The degree of fury this would cause in the American people should not be underestimated, and it would become politically impossible for the US government to continue to treat either nation in a friendly manner. Our relations with them would come to resemble those we have with China if not being worse. If Den Beste is right, is anyone up for regime change in Paris or Berlin? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #3 UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal adopts the Max Boot theory in today's editorial: "By aligning himself with and thus shoring up the politically weak anti-American German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Mr. Chirac has a chance to make himself Europe's dominant player. He can also show up Britain's Tony Blair, who's already America's best friend, and at the same time recall for his countrymen the Gaullist days of the force de frappe and independence from NATO. "But the French and Germans should be careful how much independence they wish for. As we note optimistically in the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, the U.S. and Europe share common values. But we are now in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world in which Americans have learned that they are uniquely threatened by terrorists and the states that sponsor them. "A country that uses its veto to stand in the way of American self-defense will not find many Americans wanting to guarantee its defense in the future. We will turn for help, and help in turn, those countries in Europe and elsewhere that are on America's side." |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-01-24 04:58:38 |
| #2 The comments page for the French embassy to the US is at: http://www.info-france-usa.org/contactus.asp Need I say more? |
| Posted by: Nero 2003-01-23 23:15:25 |
| #1 The last scenario where France & Germany have actively supported Iraq, breaking sanctions, will be seen to be correct. There is no reason for so much opposition from them unless they have a lot to lose, something in the magnitude of a couple of billion. Most of this will be benign stuff, but some will be most embarrasing, when it turns out they helped Iraq in its weaponry programs, indirectly or not. However I predict that the US & Britain will not reveal any of this after the war. Any information will have to come out independently thru Congress or other sources. The political fallout would be just too great to come out publicly with this, but certainly it will be used as a diplomatic wedge for eons to come. As for the American public, I don't think most people care about sanctions in Iraq, and so this will not be a big deal except in political circles (and those that pay attention, like Rantburg of course). |
| Posted by: Rw 2003-01-23 17:15:22 |