| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Paris Is Washington’s ’Best Ally’ |
| 2003-04-16 |
| President Jacques Chirac's ruling party followed up on the French leader's effort to make amends with the United States, saying Wednesday that Paris was Washington's "best ally" in the fight against terrorism. They must be drinking the wine we aren't buying anymore. The comments came a day after Chirac sought to repair ties frayed by the war in Iraq by telephoning President Bush. It was the first time the two leaders had spoken in more than two months. "We continue to think, as paradoxical as it might sound, that we are the best allies of the Americans, because we are preoccupied by the same reality — terrorism," said Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the spokesman of Chirac's Union for a Popular Movement, or UMP. "If we step into the spiral of hatred ... who will be the winner?" Donnedieu de Vabres said in an interview with France-2 television. We all know who the loser will be Chirac told Bush in a 20-minute phone conversation Tuesday that France was willing to adopt a "pragmatic approach" on postwar issues, according to Chirac's spokeswoman, Catherine Colonna. The French leader also welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and the brevity of the war that ousted the Iraqi leader, Colonna said, adding that Chirac expressed condolences for American deaths in the conflict. The phone call was the clearest signal in recent days that the French leader wants to repair damage done to relations with Washington by their conflicting views of the Iraq war. "Bush answered the phone, so that's a win for us!" White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the conversation "businesslike." "Caller ID was broken, otherwise we wouldn't have picked up" |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #14 liberalhawk--you're right, we do have a lot on our plates, and we shouldn't even think of doing anything serious with Syria or Iran right now. However, I think it is far too soon to go back to the UN and make nice. We need to make sure that Iraq is well on the way to a stable democracy, and if the UN has anything other than a humanitarian role, that will never happen. Look at Kosovo. That's well on its way to being a UN protectorate like the Palestinians. We can't afford to have another cesspool like that in the Arab world. The price we would have to pay for that UN blessing would be ridiculous. Hell, they didn't wait for us to get to Baghdad before Kofi & Co started demanding a role. Not asking, not suggesting, but demanding that we let them in to run the show while we paid for everything. You also make the assumption that Chirac and the rest of his government are going to do something rational, after months of proving that they are anything but rational. What sane people would go out of their way to backstab one of their closest allies like they have? Anyway, they still don't get it. They think that having Bush take a phone call after a couple of months means all is well. All is definitely NOT well, especially if de Villepin is going around to hostile Arab countries sucking up to them. The Germans are pragmatic. They are helping us with Afghanistan, and providing security to our bases to free up soldiers. Schroder's an idiot, but I don't think he went around like Chirac did to undercut us at every turn. Unlike the French, I think the Germans really do like us, and I have hope that this alliance can be saved and will be a strong one again. Russia? Well, they're opportunists. They never will be completely our friends, but they will think a little harder next time. The best course of action right now is give the Iraqis our expertise, our security and our attention. Iraqi debt relief, and rewarding our allies with contracts will be more beneficial in the long run than kissing up to a hostile UN. It may take a few years, but that would give the lie to the idea that Americans don't finish what they start. It's not going to be easy, but this is the country helped rebuild Europe and South Korea. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-04-16 19:36:06 |
| #13 Washington's "best ally" Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! You think wine sales are down now! Wait until the media catalog all the French illegal doings in Iraq. The last time I held a grudge against a major retailer, they lost my business for over a decade. You, France, have already lost my business for life! |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-04-16 17:15:31 |
| #12 France shouldn't get squat for forgiveness at least until they acknowledge, apologize for, and cause heads to roll over their recent illegal arms sales to Iraq (apparently they found Roland-3s too now). Even -- no, especially -- if they laundered it all through Syria. But come on, just because they now realize the need to make nicey-nicey rhetoric doesn't mean that underneath they're not still comfortably naked in Syria's Ba'athhouse. They have to come clean about this shit. All of it. Dump their "sphere of influence" protection of AssadJr that'll keep him stupidly stubborn enough to resist all reform. Then we can talk. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-04-16 15:56:31 |
| #11 I think Chirac has been getting too much advise from the former Iraqi Information Minister! France is as much our ally in 2003 as Japan was our ally in 1941! I only hope and pray that our leadership continues to stick to their guns and tells France where to go. |
| Posted by: TankSergeant 2003-04-16 15:26:46 |
| #10 steve: interesting point I think post-iraq war we may be coming to a split between "hawkish quasi-Wilsonians" like myself, and full-fledged "Jacksonians". Now jsut to remind everyone I have been pro-war on Iraq from the beginning, and approved of going without a 2nd/16th resolution when France proved unreasonable. However, frankly I look at everything thats on our plate right now and I am getting nervous about strategic overstretch. We need support all over the place - certainly from NATO, if not from France on its own. Yes there is a political cost when you bring on board unreliable partners (look at our experience with the Russians in Kosovo) but it also conserves your own national power. I think you have to look case by case and prioritize. Id much rather have French (or any other non-coalition of the willing European) troops on the ground in Afghan than in Iraq. Its hard to see what the French could do there that the Pakis havent already done - and in any case, supporting Pashtun-nasties and undermining Karzai is likely to piss off the Russian and Germans as much as us - goes against Chiracs grand strategy. For similar reasons I WANT a UNSC resolution signing off on the political process in Iraq, as long as we dont have to pay too much to get it. At this point a good UNSC resolution with no real UN power is worth more than Iraqi debt relief or some reconstruction contracts. I am also skeptical of any real military action now towards Syria (I think the current pressure is more to keep Syria from interfering in Iraq, much like similar pressure on Iran shortly after Taliban fall). After Iraq the next "target" should be Iran, by generally peaceful means. When thats done, and Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilt, and some degree of reconciliation with weasels, we will be in much better shape to take on Syria, Saudi, and Pakland. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 14:48:40 |
| #9 Puts the lie to the anti-war jeremiad that the invasion of Iraq would fragment the "alliance" of the war on terror. |
| Posted by: af 2003-04-16 14:46:22 |
| #8 President Jacques Chirac's ruling party followed up on the French leader's effort to make amends with the United States, saying Wednesday that Paris was Washington's "best ally" in the fight against terrorism. Haa...haaaha....Haahaha..HAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!! *cough cough* Sorry about that. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-04-16 14:02:26 |
| #7 Re LiberalHawk's note about NATO taking over ISAF: I don't want the French having a role in Afghanistan. Last time they did they refused orders on bombing runs. They're just as likely to start trying to cut deals in and outside of the Karzai government to try and screw us and others, and they're the most likely of all the Europeans to cozy up to the Pashtuns. No thanks -- keep 'em at arm's length. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-04-16 13:46:24 |
| #6 France (which also includes Chiraq)is in deep trouble--on many fronts. They (and it may or may not yet include Chiraq) are beginning to have the realization sink in. The French and Chiraq do not realize how treacherous were their actions. They have behaved like an enemy or at best a collaborator. We Merkins are pretty forgiving, but we will not give this one a pass. France is going to have to clean up their act and/or bottom out before we deal with them again on any meaningful level. I hate to see nations go down the tubes, but maybe there needs to be an example for the world to see when one stabs this country in the back. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-16 12:50:06 |
| #5 BBC reports NATO agrees to take over Afghan peacekeeping force (ISAF) from Dutch and Germans. France had been blocking this - arent any more. Good. We see which way the wind is blowing. But we need far more to make up for betrayals of last 4 months. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 12:39:40 |
| #4 Hey ah, Jacq-ass, here's a bottle of Napa cab...tie one on, ponder your failures. History will invent some cool epithets for you. |
| Posted by: defscribe 2003-04-16 11:35:53 |
| #3 ChIraq means a lie, right? |
| Posted by: KP 2003-04-16 11:32:50 |
| #2 Absolutely! France is the best ally the United States has today - after Great Britain, Australia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Israel, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, and the Philippines. Oh, and a few more of the Coalition of the Willing I can't remember right off the top of my head. Plus a few countries that remain "neutral". But France is right up there in the top of those left, absolutely! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-16 11:06:28 |
| #1 It would still be very useful to us to have UN support in Iraq - not just humanitarian, but police work, and a UNSC blessing on our political work - which would help when assorted groups in Iraq ask "why did you invite THOSE guys to the meeting and not US" But we need that without giving UNSC any large measure of control. France on the other hand needs US friendship - to keep their economy up, to fight terrorism, to save them from isolation as the axis of weasels breaks up, to help them in Africa, etc. A deal is the logical thing. OTOH a deal was also the logical thing BEFORE the war, and Chirac nixed it. One hopes that Chirac sees things differently now - if he does this relationship can be repaired, to some degree. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 10:54:40 |