| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Iraq | |||||
| France issues threat to block resolution | |||||
| 2003-03-08 | |||||
New progress reports presented by the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday offered no reason for the anti-war axis of France, Russia, China and Germany to drop their stiffening opposition to an early US-led attack on Iraq. Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei's verdict of mainly improved cooperation from Baghdad and demand for more time to finish their job bolstered the
France The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, implicitly threatened to use France's veto to block a new resolution giving the green light to war. He also rejected setting any deadline for Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441, saying that would be a pretext for war. "The reports tell us that for a month, Iraq has been
"And we always think the inspectors will make progress." As a veto-holding security council member, France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorises the automatic use of force", the foreign minister said. He suggested instead that the inspectors draw up a "hierarchy of tasks for disarmament" and give a new progress report every three weeks There's a good idea. I'd love to have a picture of Chiraq with his hand up, voting 'non'. Ditto for Putin and Schroeder. Those would be mighty useful. France is working hard to ensure the new resolution drawn up by the US, Britain and Spain will not win a majority on the 15-member council. Mr de Villepin will visit Angola, Cameroon and Guinea - all council members who are undecided over Iraq - next week, diplomatic sources in Paris said. I hope Colin Powell is working just as hard to get these countries to our side. Russia Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, appeared less forceful than his French colleague and avoided using the word veto. He hardened his position against Iraq, admitting for the first time that it could have cooperated better with inspections, and calling for Baghdad to be set a list of disarmament tasks to perform. Cats-paw; that's the set-up for the French to have a never-ending list. But Mr Ivanov said the chance of disarming Iraq peacefully "really did exist". He warned of the dangers of war, demanded international law be adhered to, and called on the security council to "emerge from the Iraq crisis not divided, but united and strong". The SC is broken. Get used to it. However, he was noticeably less determined about opposition to the proposed second US-UK resolution, saying that "we all face a difficult choice". Mr Ivanov said that inspections were "progressing" and that access to sites had been "immediate" and "unimpeded". But he also demanded the "Iraqi leadership must more actively assist" inspections. Is that the sound of the back door I hear opening?
China Efforts should persist to secure a political solution, the Chinese foreign minister, Tang Jiaxuan, said, but he made no threat of the veto in his response. He added: "We need resolve and determination and more importantly patience and wisdom. The road to peace has not been exhausted." Chinese commentators say that whether to use the veto or abstain on a second resolution will be a difficult question for Beijing. While China supports the Russian-French-German statement opposing war, it is anxious not to be left exposed if any or all of the three should modify their position. Naked self-interest. I can respect that. Germany The German foreign minister, Joschka It's certainly incomprehensible to you.
But if the Iraqis don't meet the time frames, the Weasels will just vote to extend them. Cats-paw. | |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #24 "We at the U.N. are not accustomed to hearing people say what they mean," said Mr. Annan. "This will take us some time to digest and interpret. Perhaps a committee-of-the-whole could examine the transcript for several months." Spoken like a true weasel(Just another Varmit) |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-09 08:15:58 |
| #23 --But one thing, Tom. It's exactly because we understand what GWB means we are worried. Because a friend, as important as he may be, needs to listen to the concerns of others. And GWB doesn't give the impression that he listens to others a lot. The best friends are those who tell you when they think you are wrong. They may be wrong with their opinion but they are entitled to it.-- Always we have to listen to Europe's concern, but are they listening to ours? And we are being multilateralist. Germany could have joined in, but chose not to. --. War against terrorism cannot be won without a close alliance between the U.S. and all of Europe. Both sides cannot afford to get huffy about this all forever.-- With Europe's fifth column, I wonder if we'll again be fighting there. It's not just Schroeder's gov, it's the population. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-09 01:25:13 |
| #22 Sammy's got a French-made nuke? and he put it somewhere? or threatened them with it somehow? They're afraid of seeing NATO troops in France? |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-03-08 23:57:58 |
| #21 Yes, thats pretty close to it. I think though that Fischer has changed more than his clothes over the last decades. He is a realist and probably would not have steered Germany into that mess. German press reported that he was rather furious at Schroeder's fundamental (and opportunistic) anti-war stance. Remember that in 1999 he had to convince his peace loving Green party to accept the Kosovo War, and in 2001 he took a more hawkish position in the Afghanistan case than Powell. I found an article at www.aei.org about Fischer that has since disappeared (still in google cache though). Allow me to post in full. How things change... "Our Most Surprising Ally By Jeffrey Gedmin Consider two foreign ministers. The first wants âto destroyâ the Taliban; the second to work with âmoderate Taliban leaders.â The first warns repeatedly that a key terrorist aim is âthe destruction of Israel.â The second seeks, even now after the assassination of a government minister, to increase pressure on the Jewish state. The first defends American sovereignty and U.S. leadership: Missile defense, he says, is âa purely national decision of the U.S.â; regarding NATO, he argues that to âenforce peace in Europe,â it is necessary for âthe United States to take the lead.â The second worries about losing the coalition if the president makes Iraq the next target. If âthe coalition felt it was necessary to go after terrorist groups in other countries, this would be a matter for the coalition to discuss,â reports the second ministerâs deputy. The second voice is that of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell; the hawkish first voice, that of Germanyâs foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, leader of his countryâs left-wing Green party. Itâs an odd state of affairs when the U.S. secretary of state in a Republican administration starts sounding more European than the Europeans themselves, especially when compared with Fischer. Of course, the Europeans adore Colin Powell. He counts as the reasonable moderate of the Bush administration--a lover of coalitions, with strong allergies to the use of force. The secretary of state generally seems to get full credit, moreover, for the comprehensive strategy that has emerged in the weeks since September 11. As one German columnist says of our war-mongering president, if George W. Bush had his way, diplomat âPowell would be unemployed.â It is tempting, of course, to see this as a transatlantic match made in multilateral heaven. But the European position is one of ambivalence. Sure, the allies like the big hug of coalition building. It brings them into the fold and increases their leverage vis-a-vis the United States. And the Europeans celebrate Powell for his constant pursuit of a stable coalition, treating him like a savior for doing battle with the antichrists at the Pentagon. But Europeans also understand that in the war against terrorism anything that diminishes American strength and freedom for maneuver may run counter to their own interests. On the subject of preemptive strikes down the road, for example, says one senior German military official privately: âThe U.S. should just do it--and tell us about it afterward.â This same ambivalence toward American power thwarted Warren Christopherâs 1993 Europe trip. When given the opportunity, the allies were happy to reject Bill Clintonâs plans for a more muscular approach to Bosnia; so the war raged on, and Europeans were shocked by the lack of American confidence and resolve. Which means if President Bush is true to his word that the United States will make no distinction between the terrorists and the states who assist them, and Iraqâs number will be called sooner or later. When this day comes, Joschka Fischer could help stiffen the spine of Europeans and even help get the Russians on board--or at least out of the way. Such a scenario oozes with irony, of course. In earlier days as a radical, Fischer clashed with police, protested Vietnam, and flirted with Palestinian extremism. From the left, a decade ago, he opposed the Gulf War (which put him in line with Powell), though he was clearly frustrated by some of the company he was keeping. It was then that Fischer ripped into party chairman Hans-Christian Strobele for anti-Israeli remarks, calling the Greensâ leader a âbeadle of Saddam Hussein.â And then Fischer turned hawk. He discovered the goodness of America, the utility of force, and, slowly, the marriage of values and interests. It may be a bit much to call him a neoconservative--but he tends in this direction, as Vice President Cheney was heard to whisper to him when the two met in Washington earlier this year. Bosnia was a turning point in Fischerâs thinking. He eventually stood against his own party and sided with Margaret Thatcher, for example, in supporting a U.S.-led intervention. Powell was on the other side, angrily rejecting Lady Thatcherâs advice and chiding those who had not understood the âlessons of historyâ in a New York Times op-ed. Fischer again faced down his own party--and the harsh criticism of the French, the Russians, and the Arab world--when he supported the U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in February of this year. Saddamâs âbloody regimeâ was responsible for the airstrikes, he said at the time. Fischer was also the one who first delivered the message about U.S. missile defense plans to Russian president Vladimir Putin. The message was in effect: âDear Vlad, save your breath. The Americans are going ahead,â according to American and German sources. No Schaukelpolitik here--that great German tradition of playing West against East. As calls for a bombing pause in Afghanistan have increased--with even the Italian foreign minister under pro-Bush prime minister Silvio Berlusconi chiming in--Fischer has not moved one inch. To the humanitarian Left, Fischer says only the end of Taliban rule will ultimately help the people of Afghanistan. As for his own dovish and potentially mischievous foreign ministry, he keeps reminding them, to their dismay, that what the Americans are conducting is, after all, a war. Thereâs no reason to get carried away. Fischer can get as prickly as the next guy in Brussels about unrestrained American hegemony, and he remains, like all Germans, a devout multilateralist. But there is much work that he could help us accomplish. While the United Kingdom is Americaâs number one ally in this war, the Germans have more influence on the continent, especially with the French and Russians. Germany also has military bases that could come in handy. During the Gulf War, the United States used Germany to deploy to Turkey and Saudi Arabia and commanded from the Federal Republic a task force, which included Patriot batteries in defense of Tel Aviv and Haifa. What if the United States really made the case for going after Saddam Hussein? âDonât be surprised by the positive responseâ you might get, says a senior German Social Democrat. Fischer in particular rejects the moral relativism that finds such hospitable lodging in Europe. For this reason, at crucial moments, he may have the bearings to stay the course if the war turns toward Saddam. Maybe it will then be the German foreign ministerâs turn to tell his American counterpart not to go wobbly." |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-08 16:43:32 |
| #20 I think the fundamental difference between the French and German positions is one of internal politics. The Schöder-Fischer alliance represents the segment of Germany that thinks Red, not only the old-line commies, but also the junior commies, like the "radicals" who infested Berlin's Free University when I was there in the 70s. They have a fundamentally anti-American worldview that the commies helped to foster during the 60s, 70s and 80s, and that's never worn off because they got it young. There's an opposing pro-American view to be found in the CSU/CDU, whether we agree with them on all points or not. It's more like our conservative/liberal split, with the "liberals" shading more into the Red than our own. France, on the other hand, represents the Guallist view, and I think it's more deeply rooted than the "radical" mindset in Germany. It takes de Gualle's desire to have France remain a great power in the teeth of the evidence that it's not, and then stretches it even beyond that point and ties it to an incestuous relationship with French business. There isn't much of an identifiable pro-American faction within France because the underlying assumptions are different. When Germany holds new elections, we'll probably see the two countries move closer together again. When France holds new elections and throws the crooks out, it'll be to replace them with another set of people we can't identify with, and who don't identify with us. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-03-08 16:20:34 |
| #19 Regarding TGA's: "If Europe and the U.S. drift apart, there will be a stiff price to pay." TGA, I never have evisioned Europe and the U.S. drifting apart -- just France/Germany and the U.S. drifting apart. In fact, France has already drifted so far away that French products are no longer welcome in my house and a local restauranteur has removed everything French from the menus and wine lists of his two up-scale restaurants. Again, I think France in particular underestimates the consequences of her slap in our face. Many average Americans will remember this for a long, long time. As for GWB "not listening" to France/Germany, I disagree. He listened. He's just not willing to make the concessions that he's hearing requested. Not that GWB is God, but we have an old saying here: "God hears all prayers, but sometimes the answer is 'NO'." |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-08 15:24:01 |
| #18 If they want to simply oppose the war then they could also do it by abstaining. Their vehement opposition is something else entirely. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-08 15:01:39 |
| #17 I don't think the relationship between the US and Germany will suffer. Germany is doing what it feels is right, assisting where it can and is simply opposed to a war. France, on the other hand is trying a power play and will suffer in the long run. |
| Posted by: Jim in the US 2003-03-08 14:43:23 |
| #16 I'm with Tom on this one. The real damage in relations was done not between the governments of our countries but between the people who support Bush and our European partners. It was not anything the US said that made France & Germany adopt their current stance but rather a fundamentally different attitude towards Iraq, based on self-interest or whatever. Inasmuch as you say that the US peeved the Europeans by telling them they will attack Iraq anyway, I can also say that it was obvious from the very start that the Europeans were not going to be serious about disarming Iraq, and the war option was never going to be an option. I can understand Bush's eagerness to get rid of Saddam and resolve this thing once and for all, but I cannot frankly understand the European willingness to drag this out forever. All I can deduce is that everyone is working in their self-interest, and that's fair enough. But every choice has its price, and I cannot ignore the utter dislike I feel for Chiraq & Schroeder (to put it mildly) and hence will have nothing to do with France & Germany as long as they are in government. Apropos the statement "with us or against us". At the time this was said, I honestly did not think that this was aimed at governments who were friendly already, but at regimes such as those that existed in Afghanistan at the time. Frankly, it is a shock to me that Germany has to consider this question. You were already with us! |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-08 13:45:04 |
| #15 Tom, I tried to explain the Russian position, certainly not mine. I think its certainly in the interest to maintain good relations with the Russians. I would trust them far less than you trust the French. But one thing, Tom. It's exactly because we understand what GWB means we are worried. Because a friend, as important as he may be, needs to listen to the concerns of others. And GWB doesn't give the impression that he listens to others a lot. The best friends are those who tell you when they think you are wrong. They may be wrong with their opinion but they are entitled to it. And thats what got lost the last year. If Europe and the U.S. drift apart, there will be a stiff price to pay. But on both sides. And this is something GWB doesn't seem to understand. Nobody is an island. If the world turned against the U.S. all military force would not prevent a meltdown of the U.S. economy. And nobody would want to pay that price. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-08 13:11:16 |
| #14 TGA, I don't think France or Germany or Russia really understand the GWB mentality. Call it what you want (cowboy, Texan, fundamentalist Christian, etc.), it values honest, straight talk and loyalty. When GWB goes so far as to say "you're either with us or against us," he means it to an extent that you don't seem to appreciate. There WILL be a stiff price to pay for snubbing American interests and, judging by the Democratic Party line-up, France at the very least may be paying that price for the next six years. And lest you think GWB is acting alone, I for one am behind him 100%. I can see how you Germans might view Russia as a wonderful future source for resource development and markets, but if you think that alignment with Russia is in your best interests, God help you. For someone who lived in East Germany and spent three years in the Gulag, you seem to have a short memory. Cultures change extremely slowly. I am reminded of the age-old advice to potential brides and grooms: don't go into marriage with any illusions that you will be able to change your spouse for the better. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-08 12:45:21 |
| #13 Alaska Paul, let me weigh in here. I believe that the economic factor in the relations between Russia and USA is overrated right now. Looming trade disputes, a sharply falling dollar (Russians used to think of the dollar as a safe haven) haven't helped, nor has NATO expansion that Russians have only accepted grudgingly. The "Silk Road Strategy" is also of great concern to them, too. The Russians would be too happy to counterbalance US influence in Asia and Europe. And with the recent rift between key European states and the U.S. they think they can. The relations between Germany and Russia have never been better. Putin speaks German and obviously is a friend of Schroeder. The Russians feel that they can play with Europe at eye level while with the U.S. they would always remain a "junior partner" at best. If the U.S. turns against Germany and France the Russians will be all too happy to fill the gap. They badly need European investors to explore the natural ressources they have, to rebuild their rotten economy more and more dominated by mafiosi networks. And don't forget the nationalistic factor. You'll find way more anti-american Russians than anti-European ones. Right now Russia thinks it may regain its influence in Europe. That could be more important to them than excellent relations with the U.S. And I know the Russians. I spent three years in a Russian Gulag for "anti-Soviet propaganda". And I was extremely lucky to get out that early. Time was never a concern for Russians. They are patient. They know America can turn against some smaller states but it cannot ignore Russia. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-08 12:12:56 |
| #12 Steve, I think it's never wise to shut doors forever. To isolate a country that basically shares the same values as the U.S. is not a good policy, even when this country is plagued with a government making a wrong decision just to save its ass. If Schroeder were able to destroy the German-American friendship with his stupid politics then questions about what this friendship was all about for half a century are legitimate. Remember: The UK population probably is as much anti-war as the German or French one. The difference is that Tony Blair stands up to his beliefs against his voters if need to, Schroeder does not stand up for anything. It's also true that both sides have put themselves into corners rather unnecessarily. Even Bush-friendly commentators will concede that the president has treated Europe with an unnecessary heavy hand. As for Schroeder, he can't vote for the war, it would be immediate political suicide. So the best we can hope for is abstention. But if the French and the Russian do veto, Schroeder can't abstain. It's a big diplomatic mess. I think Powell has at least tried to keep the doors open. Shutting Germany out of Iraq to "punish" it would not be a wise move. After all the reconstruction and humanitarian aid need will first of all cost us all money. Billions probably. I doubt that anyone will make a big profit in Iraq for the next years to come. If you want to keep scorecards, then not just the last year can be taken into account. As I said Iraq is just a first step. War against terrorism cannot be won without a close alliance between the U.S. and all of Europe. Both sides cannot afford to get huffy about this all forever. Lets count the losses and move on. The job is bigger than Iraq. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-08 11:23:00 |
| #11 I still cannot figure out the Russian position on the UN resolutions. Unless they figure by throwing in their lot with the AOW they are going to be on the winning side, economically. The Iraqi regime owes them $8Bn, I would think that Bush would give them so much on the dollar to stay out. Then they may be able to play post-Saddam. Just from a practical standpoint, I cannot understand their position, so is it irrational or what? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-08 11:06:53 |
| #10 TGA, I've greatly appreciated your comments here lately. You're a good guy. Now let me tell you something: if Germany votes 'nein' in the UNSC, the odds of it being allowed to help with the reconstruction of Iraq are virtually zero. GSB simply will not let the Weasels back in once we're done there. Germany has helped (considerably) with Afghanistan and we appreciate it, but that represents GWB's last olive branch to Schroeder. The French, Germans, Belgians, and Russians should consider whether they want the US to shift fundamentally against them, because that is what is going to happen if they vote 'no.' GWB keeps a scorecard. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-08 10:55:37 |
| #9 The biggest liability in this process is Hans Blix. He should never have been chosen for that job. I remember how he handled Chernobyl, he was deeply discredited in Germany because of his Russian ass kissing. Its like asking someone whether the sky is blue, yes or no, and he keeps saying yes but there are little white dots. If Blix had been saying that Iraq is in material breach (and breaking up a few missiles doesn't change anything about it) the nay-sayers would have been forced to reconsider their stance. Everybody could have saved face. Frankly, the biggest weasel in all this is Blix. The biggest U.S. mistake was to openly telling the world that it would go it alone if the SC didn't vote in its favor. That sparked a lot of the opposition. Going it alone was something the U.S. should have had as a secret, not a public Plan B. It is clear by now that even a gun to Saddam's head doesn't work. If under these circumstances a dictator doesn't comply, what else except a war would? I hope that the rift between America and parts of Europe can be healed. We cannot throw 50 years of friendship and alliance out of the window because some countries happen to have selfish and stupid leaders. The Germans will kick Schroeder out of office in 2006 (hopefully earlier, he only has a very thin majority). And while Germany will not participate in this war it will surely help with rebuilding Iraq. The war against terror and rogue states has only begun. America will need help. And in a year we'll have a clearer view of what this is all about. And hopefully we can avoid the mistakes we made this time when the next dangerous foe has to be tackled. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-08 10:28:03 |
| #8 I wonder if the Russians understand the magnitude of the opportunity they are losing here. Between the space station, reforms and other events recently, most Americans were feeling a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose with the Russians as they emerged from a repressive regime into a country that we cheered on as our new found friends. Most Americans, like myself were cheering them on as they made their way creaking into the 21st Century. But all of that was wiped away in an instant as we watched Ivanov spew lies yesterday. Gone - poof! Instantly Americans were reminded that the Russians - at least the government, really are fundamentally very different than we are. You can't buy that kind of goodwill and once squandered, as it was yesterday, it can not be restored. What a shame that Putin was so small as to let pride and an overnight stand get in the way of what would have been a beautiful and long term relationship. I wonder if Putin really grasps the long-term damage he has done to US/Russian relations? |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-08 09:24:23 |
| #7 F&%k it. Give them what they want. Give 'em all the time they want, then declare Iraq has disarmed. But the next time Saddam poisons his people then drop a nuke on Chiraq's & Schroeder's ass. Bastards. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-08 07:00:32 |
| #6 True German Ally---I appreciate your comments on Russia. Would like to discuss further off site. Please email, thanks. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-08 23:06:47 |
| #5 Look at GW's dead face on Thursday night. Listen to the personal tirade from Straw to deVileweasel. Is what we are seeing classic Texas high stakes poker? Somebody with a light hand is bluffing. And he keeps calling. Or this is all a broken play. Payback for Schroeder's election dissing of America, Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" comments, Chirac's outbust on Bulgaria. The diplomacy could of broken down weeks ago and all we are seeing now is recrimination. GW has already told them that he reserves the right to send in the troops. So the diplomacy must be for another goal, something that France was fighting for. Something that was more important than the sacrifice of EU solidarity, NATO integrity, UN credibility. I am at a loss. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-08 23:01:06 |
| #4 Blix is a Swede. They're the only allies of the Nazis who didn't get the snot kicked out of them. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-03-08 21:53:48 |
| #3 Why is MB's nose twitching and quivering very badly every time the name Blix is written or spoken. She has a very keen nose which seems to indicate to her that something is badly amiss with that man. Wonder why??? |
| Posted by: MommaBear 2003-03-08 21:34:23 |
| #2 I think scrappleface.com pretty well sums it up for me: U.N. Delegates Await Translation of Bush Remarks (2003-03-06) -- Most United Nations delegates withheld comment on U.S. President George Bush's news conference tonight, preferring to wait for a printed translation of his remarks. "It's not that we didn't understand his words," said Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "Most of us speak English. But we are confused because his remarks were almost totally lacking in nuance and subtlety. We're waiting for someone to give us a more complicated version of it." Mr. Bush said that Saddam Hussein should disarm or the U.S. and her allies would disarm him, and that the U.N. should vote yes-or-no on whether Iraq has complied with Security Council Resolution 1441. "We at the U.N. are not accustomed to hearing people say what they mean," said Mr. Annan. "This will take us some time to digest and interpret. Perhaps a committee-of-the-whole could examine the transcript for several months." |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-08 20:21:48 |
| #1 I've been wondering for a while now if the Russians are actually doing us a favor. Their presence on the "veto" side gives cover to the French. This increasingly paralyzes the Security Council, which ultimately refuses to uphold its own resolutions. Whereupon the UN's credibility goes bye-bye. That doesn't bother us. My bet is it wouldn't bother Putin much either. Unlike the French, Russia does have actual power as well as the will to use it. Neither we nor the Russians really need the UN. Maybe Vladimir and George are playing a deeper game than we think. |
| Posted by: David Hines 2003-03-08 17:40:16 |