The French Ask...did we go too far?

[JeremySF]

The Western Front
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


...the angry chasm this has opened between Paris and both London and Washington has shocked many people here and prompted some to ask whether France went too far. The title of the latest cover story in the French newsmagazine Le Point said it all: "Have They Gone Overboard?" The "they" are President Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin.

Messrs. Chirac and de Villepin continue to insist that theirs was a principled opposition that will be vindicated. But some voices within the French foreign policy elite and the business community ? which depends heavily on the U.S. for trade and investment ? are now saying that Messrs. Chirac and de Villepin did indeed go too far. The term you hear most often is "intoxicated." These two became so intoxicated by how popular their anti-U.S., antiwar stand became across Europe, and in the whole world, that they went from legitimately demanding U.N. endorsement for any use of force in Iraq to blocking any U.N.-approved use of force ? effectively making France Saddam's lawyer and protector.

"People here are a little lost now," said Alain Frachon, the senior editor of Le Monde. "They like that their country stood up for a principle, but they don't like the rift with the U.S. They are embarrassed by it."

French officials insist that their dispute with the U.S. was about means, not ends, but that is not true. It was about the huge disparity in power that has emerged between the U.S. and Europe since the end of the cold war, thanks to the vast infusion of technology and money into the U.S. military. That disparity was disguised for a decade by the softer touch of the Clinton team and by the cooperation over second-order issues, such as Kosovo and Bosnia.

But 9/11 posed a first-order threat to America. That, combined with the unilateralist instincts of the Bush team, eventually led to America deploying its expanded power in Iraq, with full force, without asking anyone. Hence the current shock and awe in Europe. As Robert Kagan, whose book "Of Paradise and Power" details this power gap, noted: "We and the Europeans today are like a couple who woke up one day, looked at each other and said, `You're not the person I married!' "

Yes, we have changed. "What Chirac failed to understand was that between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the twin towers, a new world was created," said Dominique Moisi, a French foreign policy expert. "In the past, the Americans needed us against the Soviets and would never go so far as to punish France for straying. But that changed after 9/11. You have been at war since then, and we have not, and we have not integrated that reality into our thinking [and what that means] in terms of America's willingness to go it alone. We have fewer common interests now and more divided emotions."

Indeed, the French argue that only bad things will come from this war ? more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties. The Bush team argues that this war will be a game-changer ? that it will spark reform throughout the Arab world and intimidate other tyrants who support terrorists.

Can this war produce more of what the Bush team expects than the Europeans predict? Yes, it can. Can the breach between Europe and America be healed? Yes, it can. But both depend on one thing ? how we rebuild Iraq. If we turn Iraq into a mess, the whole world will become even more terrified of unshackled U.S. power. If we rebuild Iraq into a decent, democratizing society ? about which fair-minded people would say, "America, you did good" ? the power gap between America and Europe will be manageable.

For now, though, Europeans are too stunned by this massive exercise of unilateral U.S. power to think clearly what it's about. I can't quite put my finger on it, but people here seem to feel that a certain contract between America and the world has been broken. Which is why so much is riding, far beyond Iraq, on what the Bush team builds in Iraq. If we build it, they will come around ? I hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/opinion/23FRIE.html

[JeremySF]

interesting....the French Connection.....how the French have armed Saddam....


French Connection II
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON ? What will the world discover, after the war is over, about which countries secretly helped Saddam obtain components for terror weapons?

Last week, I wrote that French brokerage was involved in the illicit transfer of the chemical HTBP, a rubbery base for a rocket propellant, from a Chinese company through Syria to Iraq.

When Christiane Amanpour asked President Jacques Chirac about it on CBS's "60 Minutes," he replied: "Because The New York Times is a serious newspaper, as soon as I read this I ordered an inquiry. I can now confirm officially, after an inquiry by the French foreign ministry, France and French companies have never endorsed or even provided such material to Iraq. So I am clearly denying this allegation."

Mr. Chirac knows more than I do about trade with Iraq: in the late 1970's, he facilitated France's multibillion-dollar sale of the Osirak nuclear reactor to the rising Saddam. (After Iraq officially stated that the reactor's purpose was not to incinerate Tehran but "to eliminate Zionism," Israel destroyed it.)

Let me supply Mr. Chirac with some documentation that the Inspector Clouseau in his foreign ministry cannot find.

On Aug. 25, 2002, e-mail went from the director general of CIS Paris to Qilu Chemicals in China regarding a preliminary order: "We are about to have one of our affiliates open a L/C [Letter of Credit] for an initial order of 20,000 kg. of sealant type HTBP-III. . . . The drums should have a label mentioning the nature of the goods, same as your sample: `modified polybatadiene [sic] sealant type III,' it is not necessary that the label shows the name of your company."

Ten days later, on Sept. 4, this response came from Qilu: "Thank you for your order to our HTPB-III! We just have sent a 40-foot container to Tartous (Syria) last month. I am not sure whether the container is in your warehouse now." A month later, Qilu sought a "formal order."

A Times colleague in Paris visited CIS early last week. The director, Jean-Pierre Pertriaux, acknowledged the documents but said someone else had filled the order. I duly reported his denial.

Mr. Pertriaux has since written to me to denounce my column as "mostly imagination and slander." He argues, in a rambling fashion, "About HTPB, one of the uses of this chemical is as a binder for rocket propellant, one of the possible rocket style is long-range missile, which I personally know for sure the Iraqis do not have (the CIA know it still better): so the supply of HTPB is legal, it is not forbidden by the UN except for a use which does not exist, though it is unpleasant if you plan to invade Iraq and do not want to face field rockets or anti-tank weapons."

But what about those e-mail notes? "My company never supplied HTPB to Iraq (but it considered this eventuality) we know the Chinese QiLu company, they boasted to have shipped HTPB to promote their business but never actually did."

Then, "leaving you a chance to show that you distorted the truth, but did not organize a lie," the French broker pointed elsewhere: "Three shipments (totaling 115.8 tons) have actually been made from USA via Jordanian traders."

He didn't name the supposed suppliers, but I was able to check his assertion that "the supply of HTPB is legal" with an assistant secretary of state, John Wolf. "All military-related sales to Iraq are banned by several U.N. resolutions," countered Mr. Wolf, the man in charge of our nonproliferation bureau. "This is rocket fuel you're talking about. The fact that Iraq was permitted to have missiles in the sub-150-kilometer range does not therefore allow the import of such fuel. Any sale to Iraq, except for humanitarian goods, requires the approval of the U.N. sanctions committee." The U.S. is on that committee and never approved such a sale.

Is this component of fuel propelling "unpleasant" weapons in Iraq now, to be used against our troops? I have no proof of that. But the name of the Iraqi arms merchant who handled the shipment when it arrived in Syria is no mystery. After the war, he'll sing, same as Saddam's runners of Al Qaeda agents.

Then President Chirac, all injured innocence, may castigate the foreign minister who too quickly assured him that a column about a French connection was "devoid of all foundation."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20SAFI.html

[Fletch XXX]

hmmm.

[theking]

Originally posted by JeremySF
The Western Front
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


...the angry chasm this has opened between Paris and both London and Washington has shocked many people here and prompted some to ask whether France went too far. The title of the latest cover story in the French newsmagazine Le Point said it all: "Have They Gone Overboard?" The "they" are President Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin.

Messrs. Chirac and de Villepin continue to insist that theirs was a principled opposition that will be vindicated. But some voices within the French foreign policy elite and the business community ? which depends heavily on the U.S. for trade and investment ? are now saying that Messrs. Chirac and de Villepin did indeed go too far. The term you hear most often is "intoxicated." These two became so intoxicated by how popular their anti-U.S., antiwar stand became across Europe, and in the whole world, that they went from legitimately demanding U.N. endorsement for any use of force in Iraq to blocking any U.N.-approved use of force ? effectively making France Saddam's lawyer and protector.

"People here are a little lost now," said Alain Frachon, the senior editor of Le Monde. "They like that their country stood up for a principle, but they don't like the rift with the U.S. They are embarrassed by it."

French officials insist that their dispute with the U.S. was about means, not ends, but that is not true. It was about the huge disparity in power that has emerged between the U.S. and Europe since the end of the cold war, thanks to the vast infusion of technology and money into the U.S. military. That disparity was disguised for a decade by the softer touch of the Clinton team and by the cooperation over second-order issues, such as Kosovo and Bosnia.

But 9/11 posed a first-order threat to America. That, combined with the unilateralist instincts of the Bush team, eventually led to America deploying its expanded power in Iraq, with full force, without asking anyone. Hence the current shock and awe in Europe. As Robert Kagan, whose book "Of Paradise and Power" details this power gap, noted: "We and the Europeans today are like a couple who woke up one day, looked at each other and said, `You're not the person I married!' "

Yes, we have changed. "What Chirac failed to understand was that between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the twin towers, a new world was created," said Dominique Moisi, a French foreign policy expert. "In the past, the Americans needed us against the Soviets and would never go so far as to punish France for straying. But that changed after 9/11. You have been at war since then, and we have not, and we have not integrated that reality into our thinking [and what that means] in terms of America's willingness to go it alone. We have fewer common interests now and more divided emotions."

Indeed, the French argue that only bad things will come from this war ? more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties. The Bush team argues that this war will be a game-changer ? that it will spark reform throughout the Arab world and intimidate other tyrants who support terrorists.

Can this war produce more of what the Bush team expects than the Europeans predict? Yes, it can. Can the breach between Europe and America be healed? Yes, it can. But both depend on one thing ? how we rebuild Iraq. If we turn Iraq into a mess, the whole world will become even more terrified of unshackled U.S. power. If we rebuild Iraq into a decent, democratizing society ? about which fair-minded people would say, "America, you did good" ? the power gap between America and Europe will be manageable.

For now, though, Europeans are too stunned by this massive exercise of unilateral U.S. power to think clearly what it's about. I can't quite put my finger on it, but people here seem to feel that a certain contract between America and the world has been broken. Which is why so much is riding, far beyond Iraq, on what the Bush team builds in Iraq. If we build it, they will come around ? I hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/opinion/23FRIE.html

Excellent article.

"Indeed, the French argue that only bad things will come from this war ? more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties. The Bush team argues that this war will be a game-changer ? that it will spark reform throughout the Arab world and intimidate other tyrants who support terrorists."

That says it all in a nut shell.

[JeremySF]

Originally posted by theking


Excellent article.

"Indeed, the French argue that only bad things will come from this war ? more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties. The Bush team argues that this war will be a game-changer ? that it will spark reform throughout the Arab world and intimidate other tyrants who support terrorists."

That says it all in a nut shell.

What's interesting, that most people forget, is that during the GW1 (hah..that's fun Gulf War 1 = GW1), Israel was in the midst of another intifada with the Palestinians, and that many attribute the US's decisive victory in GW1 as a catalyst for getting the Arabs to negotiate.

We could see that again. With a decisive military victory, they may realize, they're only hope is cooperation and negotiation.

[jimmyf]

Most of the French Gov. are scared
shitless of what's going to be found in Iraq, papers, contracts and on computers. I would think the the German's are not feeling very good either.