Schroeder and Chirac Meet to Genuflect on Each Other's Coolness

[Timber Loftis]

Timber's Obligatory OpEd:

Well, the French and German leader met today to put forth a statement how before we go to war we should take measures, analyze ideas, consider alternatives, isolate policies, undertake considerations, and DO NOTHING.

Look, they said there is "no evidence" yet also stated the inspections were proceeding full-scale and had produced results. I guess they've declared that those missiles Blix ordered Iraq to turn over simply do not exist.

Quote from their issued statement:
Its full and active cooperation is necessary.

Look, you can only say this emphatically so many times before Mr. Hussein sues you for aggravating his hernia through repeated inducement of laughter. This is the text of the articles ending the Gulf War TWELVE YEARS AGO.

quote from the article:
But Mr. Straw rejected the idea of reinforcing the inspections and setting detailed deadlines for Mr. Hussein to comply with United Nations weapons inspections. "You don't need to treat him like a child, he is not a child," Mr. Straw said. "He does not need to be provided with a list of things he knows he's got to do in any event."

Really? He is a child, he does need to be told what to do, and he likely won't do it willingly anyway. Or, are we ignoring the last dozen years?

Also note there is no mention of the big bucks French and German contract companies have made in the last dozen years selling weapon components to the mustachioed madman.

Oh, well, here it is:

From New York Times
New European Document Opposes Using Force Against Iraq
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Feb. 24 — France, Germany and Russia declared today that a war against Iraq was not justified at this time and that international inspections to rid Iraq of its most dangerous weapons were working.

The declaration seemed intended to counter an American-led plan to introduce a resolution in the Security Council stating that Iraq had not complied with demands that it cooperate fully with weapons inspectors.

The document is also certain to deepen the rift between the United States and Europe over how to force President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to rid his country of the remnants of his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and his ballistic missiles.

The declaration is contained in an informal "memorandum" drafted by France that will be distributed at the United Nations in New York, senior French officials said. They added that the document enjoyed the support of China.

"The military option should only be a last resort," the document says. "So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled."

The memorandum adds that there is "no evidence" that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities, although it concedes that "suspicions remain." As for the United Nations-led inspections, they have "just reached their full pace," are "functioning without hindrance" and "have already produced results," the memorandum says.

The document calls for tougher inspections, including precise deadlines for Iraq to disarm, an increase in the number of inspectors, the creation of mobile units to inspect movable targets like trucks, better aerial spying on Iraqi sites and better processing of the spy data. Under this proposal, the chief inspectors would report on Iraq's progress every three weeks.

In an apparent effort to head off criticism that the three-country initiative is a stalling tactic to avoid a decision on going to war, the declaration states that inspections "cannot continue indefinitely," adding: "Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary."

The memorandum coincided with a meeting in Brussels today of the foreign ministers of the European Union in which there was no effort to hide the deep divisions created by the Iraq crisis. Today's clash came only a week after European Union leaders patched up their differences with a statement telling Iraq that it had a final chance to resolve the crisis peacefully.

Today, the French foreign minister, Dominque de Villepin, urged the United Nations to give Baghdad a timetable to disarm while Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said that Mr. Hussein's guilt had already been proven and that Britain wanted the Security Council to vote on a resolution in "up to two weeks, maybe a little more" in support of war.

Mr. de Villepin said a second resolution would be "a mistake" while arms inspections were making progress. "There are some countries that think that today it's important to table a second resolution," Mr. de Villepin told reporters. "We think for our part it isn't necessary or useful, since we are resolutely in a time of inspections. That is why we have said we could not accept this second resolution, which would be clearly in the framework of preparing a military intervention."

In a sharp critique of the American-British initiative, he said that a new resolution would not win enough support in the Council, because "there is not, clearly, a majority for a second resolution." He praised his own diplomacy, saying that the new French-drafted memorandum was aimed at "making the work of the inspectors concrete and credible."

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, also called the pending United States-British resolution unnecessary and a violation of the consensus reached by European Unions leaders last week. "The political situation in the E.U. has not changed since we found this compromise and I advise everyone to stick to it," he said.

But Mr. Straw rejected the idea of reinforcing the inspections and setting detailed deadlines for Mr. Hussein to comply with United Nations weapons inspections. "You don't need to treat him like a child, he is not a child," Mr. Straw said. "He does not need to be provided with a list of things he knows he's got to do in any event."
France's opposition to a second resolution in the Security Council is curious since it was President Jacques Chirac who first proposed a two-stage plan that could lead to United Nations authorization of military force against Iraq.

In an interview with The New York Times last September, Mr. Chirac laid out a plan for a first resolution that would require Iraq to allow the return of United Nations inspectors. A second resolution, he said, would deal with "a possible attack on Iraq" if it did not fully cooperate with the inspectors.

He said at the time that France "is not indicating in advance what its position might be," but added, "As usual, we will help draft the resolution."

Now Mr. Chirac has emerged as a strong antiwar voice among America's allies. The current issue of Paris Match magazine ran a cover photo of Mr. Chirac and Mr. de Villepin — smiling, with the headline, "Chirac-Villepin: The Warriors for Peace." The 22-page special report includes a poll in which 81 percent of those questioned said they approved of the way Mr. Chirac was dealing with the United States.

The United States, which takes the position that no second resolution is necessary, is taking the lead with Britain in drafting a second resolution authorizing force, a move France is opposing. The French explanation is that there is no need to talk of force while inspections are working.

Mr. de Villepin underscored his country's opposition to a new Security Council resolution in an interview published today in Le Figaro. He cited the inspectors' order for the destruction of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles — deemed to be in breach of the United Nation's range limit — as a good example of how the inspections were obliging Iraq to disarm.

Asked if France would use its veto to block a new resolution, Mr. de Villepin said the question was not important because Washington was unlikely to win the nine votes on the Security Council needed for passage.

"There are many of us who are convinced" that the current resolution "offers the necessary framework for action by the international community," he said. "We firmly choose the way of inspections, and a large majority of nations are with us, notably European, African and non-aligned nations."

[Moiraine]

Tell that to Hans Blix, that the inspections he is conducting are worth nothing, that they never were worth anything anyway, that his reports are irrelevant ... why not fire him right now ? After all, we are spending good money on he and his team. Since we knew already so much before he even started his work anyway.

[ 02-25-2003, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Well, I think Mr. Blix has done a pretty good job. He has made it quite clear that Iraq is not cooperating substantively, and that, without full Iraqi cooperation, it doesn't matter how many inspectors there are or how long you give them because they'll never be able to do the job. He's compared the current inspections to the inspections in '91 saying that more time wasn't the answer then and that now this need not have taken as long as it has.

The problem is that the anti-war movement is willing to accept any little crumb he reports about Iraqi cooperation while ignoring the glaring fact that Iraq has not, even today, come to grips with the disarmament as ordered by the UN. Mr. Blix says they haven't accepted the disarmament, he says they aren't cooperating substantively, he says the inspectors can't disarm Iraq only the Iraqis can, he says the Iraqis have to prove they don't have the weapons but they aren’t' doing it, and he says more time and inspectors are not required. Despite what Mr. Blix says, there are some nations that still think more inspectors and more time is the answer. Someone isn't listening. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

The pro-war camp needs to get rid of Mr. Blix? No need, every time he speaks before the SC he makes the case for war. Unfortunately, some only hear the positive things he says even though they are completely negated by the lack of complete Iraqi cooperation. Maybe the nations who aren't listening to him should fire him and hire someone who will say what they want to hear.

[Donut]

I'm confused Timber. Why are you quoting Straw?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Tell that to Hans Blix, that the inspections he is conducting are worth nothing, that they never were worth anything anyway, that his reports are irrelevant ... why not fire him right now ? After all, we are spending good money on he and his team. Since we knew already so much before he even started his work anyway.

Lotsa bile in this, but I'll keep it civil.

Hans Blix is worthless, though it's not his fault. He told Saddam to destroy dozens of missiles. Saddam flat-out refuses (see Dan Rather interview). So, if Saddam ignores Blix, Blix's efforts are all for naught. March 1 is the deadline - just wait and see.

We didn't know so much before Blix started. But, he and his crew (I think he was an inspector then) were kicked out of Iraq in the mid-90's because of what they were and were not finding. SInce then, Saddam has purchased WoMD components aplenty. I'm not attacking Blix, I'm against Saddam.

When Saddam has spent 12 years ignoring all mandates and efforts, why keep it up? It's obvious the inspectors, the UN, and the entire world can demand all they want but Saddam is going to ignore everything. He always has. The 4 more months that Chirac and Schroder want won't really accomplish anything. Besides, 4 months is the blink of an eye. It's not even enough time for things to change if they were going to. It's simply a stall tactic. In 4 more months, they'll want 4 more months.

[Ronn_Bman]

For clarification Timber, the inspectors weren't kicked out in '98, they were withdrawn because of a lack of Iraqi cooperation related to the disarmament. The lack of cooperation seems to be a running theme.

There were, IIRC, a couple of inspectors ejected by the Iraqis for spying.