France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war

[Grojlach]

Not sure if this was already brought up, my excuses if that's the case.

France warns about blocking resolution on Iraq war

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 -- France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
France's opposition to a war, emphatically delivered here by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, is a major blow for the Bush administration, which has begun pouring tens of thousands of troops into the Persian Gulf in preparation for a military conflict this spring. The administration had hoped to mark the final phase in its confrontation with Iraq when U.N. weapons inspectors deliver a progress report Monday.
But in a diplomatic version of an ambush, France and other countries used a high-level Security Council meeting on terrorism to lay down their markers for the debate that will commence next week on the inspectors' report. Russia and China, which have veto power, and Germany, which will chair the Security Council in February, also signaled today they were willing to let the inspections continue for months.
Only Britain appeared to openly support the U.S. position that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has thwarted effective inspections.
"If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end," de Villepin told reporters. "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
The United Nations, he said, should stay "on the path of cooperation. The other choice is to move forward out of impatience over a situation in Iraq to move towards military intervention. We believe that today nothing justifies envisaging military action."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the face of such comments, departed from his prepared text on terrorism and implored his colleagues to remember that the Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. "We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week," Powell said. He used a variation of the phrase "must not shrink" three more times as he addressed the council.
During the weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution, French officials had indicated they were open to some sort of military intervention if Iraq did not comply. But now the French appear to have set much higher hurdles for support.
Rising opposition to war, particularly in France, appears to have played a role in the hardening positions on the Security Council. Foreign officials are also aware of polls in the United States suggesting that support for a war drops dramatically if the Bush administration does not have U.N. approval.
While the United Nations was debating today, U.S. military officials announced that the Army is sending a force of about 37,000 soldiers, spearheaded by the Texas-based 4th Infantry Division, to the Persian Gulf region. It is the largest ground force identified among an estimated 125,000 U.S. troops ordered to deploy since Christmas Eve, the Associated Press reported.
At the United Nations, several foreign ministers said a war in Iraq would spawn more terrorist acts around the globe and, in the words of Germany's Joschka Fischer, have "disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability."
"Terrorism is far from being crushed," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "We must be careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity of the entire [anti-]terrorism coalition. In this context we are strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation revolving around Iraq."
Powell replied: "We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us."
But when the foreign ministers emerged from the council debate and addressed reporters, it appeared that Powell's pleas had made little impact. Although President Bush said last week he was "sick and tired of games and deception," Fischer said the inspections were a success.
"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," Fischer said. "We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed."
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said Monday's report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. The chief weapons inspectors "have been talking about that there is more work to do in terms of the inspections and they need more time. I think we should respect their opinion and support their work."
De Villepin, in a lengthy and at times theatrical news conference, was asked whether France would use its veto power to thwart Washington's campaign for quick action. He said France "will shoulder its responsibilities, faithful to the principles it has."
France would never "associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."
France, as chair of the Security Council this month, had organized today's meeting on terrorism in part to draw attention to its contention that the Iraq situation has detracted from the more pressing need to confront international terrorism.
De Villepin reacted coolly to suggestions, made by senior Bush administration officials Sunday, that Hussein and his top advisers be offered political asylum outside Iraq to avert a war. "The problem is something more difficult than a question of change of regime," he said. "Let us not be diverted from our objective. It is the disarmament of Iraq."
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan also indirectly criticized the prospect of war when he addressed the council on terrorism. "Any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states -- or any generation of new disputes between states in the name of anti-terrorism -- is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs could possibly bring," he said, alluding to frequent U.S. assertions that the confrontation with Iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism.
The only sign of support for the U.S. position came from its closest ally, Britain. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "time was running out" for Hussein and his "cat and mouse" game. But Straw added that Britain preferred a U.N. resolution authorizing force.
"Iraq has a responsibility now to avoid a conflict, to avoid a war," Powell told reporters. "There is no question that Iraq continues to misunderstand the seriousness of the position that it's in.
"If the United Nations is going to be relevant," he added, "it has to take a firm stand."

Source: Washington Post

[ 01-22-2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Night Stalker]

Not supprised. And though the French sound like they are being peace makers with this, the read is "We have our own financial stakes at heart". France, China, and Russia have VERY lucrative defense and other contracts tied up in Iraq. As much as Europe would like to blame the US position on oil (financial interests) they are just as guilty.

NOTE: I'm talking at the country level, not the individual one.

[Ronn_Bman]

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

Maybe this time they should be promised that if they don't co-operate, we guarantee those contracts will not be honored?

It's a rhetorical question.

It would be upsetting if the French try to nix the operation, but I think they will, at worst, abstain after another post Saddam contract guarantee.

With negotiations like these in the works, I find it ironic that the US is considered the "oil monger".

We insist on the enforcement of actions prescribed by the UN's SC, we put the majority of coalition lives on the line, we provide the bulk of materials, and we guarantee our allies' oil contracts with and debt collections against Iraq in order to achieve their co-operation in an effort to enforce a resolution they signed off on a dozen years ago to protect a sovereign member nation, but we get the reputation of being war-hungry oil mongers.

Saddam claimed Kuwait was stealing his oil prior to the Gulf War. Today, the French and Russians have to be promised their oil deals will be protected to agree to force inspectors, and the US is the oil fiend? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

It's not just oil. There's very expensive radar and missile tech too. Alot of which Iraq is not supposed to have according to the armistise.

[Iron_Ranger]

There were some pretty good e-mails on The Big Story with John Gibson on Fox today, two of them that stand out in my mind were:

'Maybe we should hold off the invasion of Iraq and invade france, theyre used to it anyway.'

and

'The french do only two good things right: Making champange and surrendering.'



Not saying I think they were appropraite or agree with them, but they were funny .

[ 01-22-2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[skywalker]

Hmm, France bashing, how novel.

Mark

[Sir Taliesin]

The French are just being....well for lack of a better word... FRENCH!

[Skunk]

We insist on the enforcement of actions prescribed by the UN's SC, ...in an effort to enforce a resolution they signed off on a dozen years ago to protect a sovereign member nation, but we get the reputation of being war-hungry oil mongers.

Oh the SC argument again... You can't say, "we only want to ensure that SC resolutions are adhered to" in the case of Iraq - but ignore Israel which has breached far more SC resolutions. The argument doesn't wash.
As for the reputation of 'oil hungry', it might be to do with the fact that the US quite recently stated that securing Iraqi oil sites was one of its primary aims.

As for France, it has ALWAYS maintained that it would not only SUPPORT but also give MILITARY ASSISTANCE to any war with Iraq IF Iraq did *not* comply with the resolution or if Iraq hindered the work of the Weapons Inspectors.

But Iraq is co-operating with the inspectors and it has yet to breach the resolution. So France's position has remained unchanged - no war without a breach of the resolution. Oil has nothing to do with it.

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

That isn't true. Russia and France agreed to the resolution because if they did not, the US and UK would have gone alone and that would have literally meant the END OF THE UNITED NATIONS. They gave in to political blackmail.
This time round, it seems that France will vote 'NO' anyway - perhaps on the grounds that the UN would be dead anyway.

Remember, if France votes NO and the US/UK go into Iraq - then they would probably LOSE the contract ANYWAY.

So if oil is their motivating factor, then they would signal that they would vote YES in order to retain their oil rights.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: The French are just being....well for lack of a better word... FRENCH!

Well put.

Originally posted by skywalker: Hmm, France bashing, how novel. Mark

Why is it Mark, that you are so quick to jump out at a France bash and so quick to hop on the band wagon if it is US bashing? Just curious.

Edit: I mean bashing France is not a good thing, but you jumped right on that but I can't ever recall having seen you jump out and decry US bashing.

[ 01-23-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]