Betcha can guess. Hey, if we can get that whole oil-for-food thing running again, we'll be back at status quo.

July 12, 2004
France Announces Renewal of Diplomatic Ties With Iraq
By PETER S. GREEN

France announced today that it had re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq, broken off during the regime of the ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

In Paris, a French foreign ministry spokesman told journalists today that France "wants to participate in the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq."

Political analysts said that given France's longstanding opposition to the United States-led invasion of Iraq last year, it was unlikely the country would suddenly win access to lucrative reconstruction contracts.

"It is not a signal other than this is Iraq getting itself into the international game again," said James Goldgeier, a professor of political science at George Washington University in Washington. "If the U.S. really starts to phase out of the running of the country after the elections in '05, then we are going to see more competition among countries to get in on the action in Iraq."

Iraq cut diplomatic ties with France in 1991, but since 1996, the French have maintained a diplomatic presence at their Embassy in Baghdad under the auspices of Romania.

Pascale Boniface, director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris, said renewing ties with France would help the new Iraqi government establish its legitimacy.

"Iraq has to show that it is not locked into a subservience to the United States," Mr. Boniface said. For the French government, he said, recognizing the American-backed regime is a necessary step to protecting French interests in the region.

"People with different interests have a mutual interest in masking their differences," Mr. Boniface said.

The renewal of ties came as Iraq's new foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, met in Brussels with European Union foreign ministers to win help rebuilding his country.

Mr. Zebari said he wanted to show the new Iraqi government was not "window dressing" for the United States, and he won a pledge from the Europeans to continue helping Iraq's reconstruction effort.

But Mr. Zebari dismissed a call by the Europeans today for Iraq to outlaw the death penalty.

"The reality we face on the ground demands and requires some tougher action to bring the security situation under control," Mr. Zebari said.

The European Union has pledged to spend 305 Million Euros ($371 Million) in humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Iraq this year, and a similar amount is planned for next year, the Associated Press reported. Aid workers for the union have so far stayed across the Iraqi border in Jordan, because of the dangers to foreigners in Iraq.

______________________________________________
And one wonders where US distrust of the French government comes from. :rolleyes:

[ 07-12-2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I know I've seen numbers of how much various countries are putting into the reconstruction, how many billions (not counting cost for soldiers on the ground) are we putting into Iraq, compared to .35 billion from the EU (much of which I believe is coming from Britain)

[ 07-12-2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

<font color=plum>This was the part that captured my attention. Since we currently have an entire thread dedicated to the American Administration "interfering" with Australian politics - I wonder if the same outcry will be made regarding the Europeans trying to interfere and influence the new Iraqi government? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] </font>

I think the point has been made, Cerek, that most of us understand this is politics as usual. Just look at Israel/Palestine. Every suicide bombing or retailiatory air strike that gets reported in the news begins or ends with a lineup of who condemned it and who supported it: "In response, the UN said.... The U.S. said.... The E.U. said...." It's the world we live in. I mean, crikey, how many countries are pulling for Kerry to win? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] To hear Kerry tell it, most of Europe. ;)

It may be worth noting that France, for much the same reasons, did the same for the colonial terrorists some 200 years ago.

It may be worth noting that France, for much the same reasons, did the same for the colonial terrorists some 200 years ago. </font>[/QUOTE]Colonial Terrorists that were supported by approx only 37% of their own people. ;)

What percentage of the Iraqi people, I wonder, support their new govt.?

The "will of the people" is a farce and always has been.

The will of the people is no farse. Look at prohibition in the US as one example. There are others, but it's not our central topic here, so I won't really digress too much, other than to note that a certain % of people are not "for" one side or the other -- they simply wait to see who the winner is. Some nations do this as well (well, most perhaps). I note that for all the great help the French provided in the American Revolution, it only really came in any substantial form after a couple of years of the colonists winning battles on their own accord, and really only when it looked like the colonists were fairly sure to win. Ben Franklin spent a good two years in Paris negotiating for more help, and only getting a trickle here and a trickle there, before France really joined the effor in earnest. I'm not trying to paint France in a bad light here -- I'm just trying to state history accurately.

Well, I wouldn't say that France only committed when it looked like the colonists were going to win. Rather, the French waited for the colonists to prove themselves as a capable fighting force worth investing time, money and troops in, and risking open war with Britain over. There was still a significant element of risk involved with France committing to the American cause, but, as you say, they wern't going to just wantonly send troops to assist a doomed, rag-tag insurgent militia. They had to be sure that supporting the colonials would be worth it in the long run.

I agree with your overall premise. Self-interest is the bedrock of corporate investment. You can't begrudge people, or corporatised groups of people, for looking out for number one. We all do it one way or another.

[ 07-13-2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I don't know if I'm as understanding to France's position, during our war for independence or during the war for liberating Iraq. At some point the right thing simply must be done, and it's a good thing for France that Churchill and Roosevelt and Eisenhower saw eye-to-eye on this. As a sidenote, in my representation of some significant businesses in France (including those nationally and internationally recognized by name), I note that inaction seems to be the preferred course of action, even when almost infeasible. Personal experience and opinion -- maybe the layman on the street feels differently, but I do note this trend among French entities, and I have no cause to believe the government there doesn't follow the same model. My 2 pennies -- worth exactly that.