the truth about france, Chirac ignores global atrocities in power pursuit

[bodypilot90 0]

Chirac ignores global atrocities in power pursuit

March 21, 2003

BY JOHN CRUICKSHANK








PARIS--The warriors of France were out in full force last night.

Their field of battle was the perimeter around the United States Embassy in the heart of Paris. Their arms were water cannons, nightsticks and tear gas. Their foe was the French peace movement.

Masked under black and red banners--the colors of anarchism and socialism--as well as the obligatory Palestinian flags, this vast gathering joins French President Jacques Chirac, a conservative nationalist, in opposing U.S. action in Iraq. But in little else.

It is a coalition of extreme leftists willfully in denial of the truths of history and Parisian students ignorant of history altogether.

As implausible as it seems to anyone conversant with Saddam Hussein's crimes against his countrymen and his neighbors, the Parisian marchers would genuinely prefer more brutal dictatorship for Iraq than American-led change. They are true believers.

Mr. Chirac, by contrast, is a consummate cynic who believes in nothing but politics.

As the morning Parisian daily, Le Figaro, told its readers approvingly: Mr. Chirac had three reasons for his long diplomatic campaign against the United States. All of them had to do with enhancing French power. None of them had to do with the welfare of the Iraqis or peace in the Middle east.

First, President Chirac wants to lessen American influence in the world--because it now dwarfs the old great powers like his. Timothy Garton Ash, another opponent of the war, said nearly the same thing in Thursday's British daily, the Guardian.

"Jacques Chirac believes that it's unhealthy for any single country to have so much power, but it's particularly dangerous if that country happens to be America [rather than shall we say, France].''

Secondly, Le Figaro says, Mr. Chirac is trying to support the development of a distinctly European voice in world affairs. The end of the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet bloc and the West was supposed to create--according to the French and Germans--a new world of many powers.

But it turns out that was just one last illusion of that long dangerous period.

When genocidal war returned to Europe in the appalling disintegration of Yugoslavia, there was no power there to restore humanity. Only the United States had the will and the might to end ethnic cleansing in the heart of the old world.

And besides, the states newly freed from Soviet enslavement want nothing of Mr. Chirac's European pole of influence. They have overwhelmingly backed the United States. Mr. Chirac's most enthusiastic supporters are Russia and China, the victors of Chechnya and Tibet, respectively.

Britain, anxious not to be drowned in a Europe dominated by French bureaucracy and German money, has opted for an Anglo brotherhood.

Thirdly, Le Figaro notes, President Chirac has sought to elevate the Security Council of the UN into a sort of steering committee for global affairs.

Nowhere in the world, aside from certain occupied villages of the Ivory Coast, does France exercise more power than in the UN offices in New York. As one of five permanent members of the Security Council with a veto against all action, France is in a position to determine at least what will not happen under the aegis of the UN.

This legalistic notion of international right and wrong allowed the French foreign minister Thursday to look at the assault on Iraq by America, Britain and Australia--with the support of more than 40 other nations--and say that this is an operation "without any legitimacy.''

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan abets this epic silliness with comments like the one he made earlier this week: "It is a sad day for the UN and the international community.''

This presumes there is some genuine community of interest that joins the North Koreans and Iraqis with Americans and the British. Mr. Annan would piously say that world peace or the welfare of children bind us universally. But a mere glance of how the North Koreans and Iraqis treat their subjects shows how preposterous that thought is.

The truth is there is no such thing as an international community. It is a polite fiction that is for those who dream of the perfectibility of man a beautiful vision.

But today there are just nations and their interests. President Bush is pursuing the security concerns of his nation. President Chirac is trying to advance the international influence of his.

The difference is the American president is seeking to unseat a murderous dictator who has sinned against every standard of human decency. President Chirac has been seeking to keep him safe to sin again.


John Cruickshank is vice president of editorial of the Chicago Sun-Times.

[BBKid 0]

Mate - I'm getting really concerned about your threads. I honestly don't mean this as a personal insult (though many here will take it as such), but a lot of your posts appear to simply fuel racist tendencies that are alarmingly prevalent in the US today. I'm not saying that everything you type is made up, but your sources do only ever present one point of view, and there is never any balance, suggesting that you can't conceive of there being any other reasons for the war than the righteous ones which you evidently believe in.

I only give this response because I wouldn't want the situation to escalate to a point where any old piece of info., no matter how unreliable, which gives a negative view of the French, Germans, Russians, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Pakistanis etc. is posted simply because you have come across it.

This situation would undermine your laudable attempts to make a point you truly stand behind (which is your right), and could conceivably lead from a perception that the posts have an element of racism, to a perception that the poster is a racist, which I at this point do not believe is the case.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[Gawain 0]

Some voices are louder than others. I take everything I read on the internet with a grain-of-salt (including stuff I use the golden-shovel with )...

From another perspective, I speak only for myself, from what I've been able to read and view reports on, I am very happy and proud that Blair made the committment he made, and I hope that you and yours are proud of the British troops on the ground. They appear to be doing really good work. Thank you.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jdhill 0]

Just an observation...

"French" not a race, it is a nationality, the post to which you are referring may be nationalistic, but not racist.

As to the validity of the original post... those ideas/motives (and others not mentioned, like finacial gains) have been discussed by a variety of news outlets on both sides of the Atlantic.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Just an observation...

And a good one.

FallRate

[cgross 1]

Well, i don't know about other post but this is a GREAT ONE. Why is it you make a comment like this when it is about Chirac? Article about Bush and Blair come out every day in Europe criticizing them.

The truth is from everything I see on both sides, that Chirac's problem is that of Jelousy toward the US. He wishes they didn't have as much power as they do, and he wishes France had more.

Let me ask you this. In this day and age why does Fance have a perminant seat on the SC with Veto power?

Serious question that I would like an answer for.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Mate - I'm getting really concerned about your threads. I honestly don't mean this as a personal insult (though many here will take it as such),

none taken mate. We are here to discuss. unlike some we can disagree and still be friends.

Quote

but a lot of your posts appear to simply fuel racist tendencies that are alarmingly prevalent in the US today.

You mean against the French. Hell yes we are mad at the french gov't. The only chance for a peaceful ending of this and the french took a active roll in stoping it.

Quote

I only give this response because I wouldn't want the situation to escalate to a point where any old piece of info., no matter how unreliable

Chicago Sun-Times is very reliable.

Quote

which gives a negative view of the French, Germans, Russians, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Pakistanis etc. is posted simply because you have come across it.

I have been most careful to post factual info to balance what is presented by others that say things like "GW is being a cowboy"," we are bombing mothers and babies for oil" ect, ect. Our troops are there to distroy WMD and SH and his thugs. To destroy training camps for terrorist. To liberate the Iraqi people, period


If you are from Iran or Syria ect, ect and have aided the 9-11 cowards yes be afraid, be very afraid. If you sell arms or WMD to them . BE AFRAID!
Why because we will defend our people from attacts and if you are at the root, the US will find you.

Quote

to a perception that the poster is a racist

As far as being a racist, no I am not. I dated a Iranian gal for over a year. I was able to learn a lot out her culture. I have lived in europe for a couple years, been to north africa for a few months. I love people and learning cultures. A few years ago on christmas eve a old truck broke down. In it was 6 french students. Being students they didn't have much money and the part they needed was not in stock. They spent christmas we my family and I repaired the truck for free. I would do the same today. So I am far from a racist, but I am a PROUD AMERICAN. Does that make me bad in your book? I believe the UN is antiamerican and antisemitic. The fact that over 40 nations have join our cause is a clear indication that We are not the only one that think SH and his WMD must go.

[BBKid 0]

Just for clarification - it wasn't that this post pushed me over the edge or anything, it was just the latest one I saw. Obviously I don't know about the reliability of the Chicago-Sun times, but my post was meant as an advisory to all, not just you. Some have been posting quotes from ridiculously inaccurate sources as 'fact'.

As for someone asking why France has veto power, well, they've used it a lot les than the US have, but people don't recognise this fact because the use this time went against the US interests.

Also, the UN is not supposed to be pro- or anti-American (or any country for that matter). Almost every country on the planet has had deecisions of the UN go against them, but that's part and parcel of the system. Again, America's perceived invincibility pre-9/11 has been shaken to the point that a decision by the UN which goes against America leads to it being branded useless and anti-American.

As for the UN being anti-semitic, I disagree. It's just seeking a fair deal for the million of displaced Palestinians created after the formation of the State of Israel, and those thousands who are still being displaced now due to Ariel Sharon's policy of illegal development into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. If that is anti-semitic, so am I.

Quick edit: no, what you have said does not make you, or anyone posting in this manner, bad in my books. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are a racist - it was more of a comment on the environment we find ourselves in today, and the dangers that can arise from it. I will continue to support the troops now that they have embarked on a dangerous mission, and hope that the situation is resolved with as little bloodshed as possible on both sides. I even hope they can take Saddam and his cronies alive, to face trial for crimes against humanity.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Just for clarification - it wasn't that this post pushed me over the edge or anything, it was just the latest one I saw. Obviously I don't know about the reliability of the Chicago-Sun times,

Think "Daily Express"

Three times is enemy action

[cgross 1]

You are wrong thinking that we think the UN is useless because of 1 decision.

Iraq - they are wrong and useless
Kosovo- they are wrong and useless
Somalia - wrong and useless

The list goes on. The fact is that they are useless when it comes to enforcing the the resolutions they adopt. Look at their track record

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Well, i don't know about other post but this is a GREAT ONE.

It's not a great one, because it completely ignores context.

Have you forgotten how many times the US, even GWB himself overlooks attrocities in other countries?

France is only being dragged over the coals by the US to discourage them from opposing the US next time. The US is sending a message that says "go against us, and we'll use every tool we have to make you regret it".

What France has done is no worse then what the US has done countless times.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

France is only being dragged over the coals by the US to discourage them from opposing the US next time. The US is sending a message that says "go against us, and we'll use every tool we have to make you regret it".

What France has done is no worse then what the US has done countless times.

This will not stop France from opposing us in the future. The issue here is that the true motives behind France's political view are not based on democracy, or human rights, or even oil (in the way the US does). Chirac has had a close personal relationship with Hussein for over 2 decades. The contracts between Iraq and TotalFinaElf (a state owned company) are motive enough for France's position. Unfortunately, they are not the sole motive.

CNN aired a segment this morning of a troop reviewing captured weapons caches. About half (as reported by the US soldier) were mortar sights and night vision gear that were French made. The other group of gear appeared to be from Jordan.

No, the foreign policy being developed is not solely directed at France. They're just first because they didn't adjust their foreign policy model. Chirac felt that France could pursue its classic devil's advocate role of opposition (often for the sake of opposition). The US, Britain and former Eastern Bloc are not playing that game anymore and, in essence, left France behind. Germany and Russia will not stay on that end of the spectrum, as their proximity to the emerging markets of eastern Europe demand a far more progressive stance in their own affairs.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Let me ask you this. In this day and age why does Fance have a perminant seat on the SC with Veto power?

Serious question that I would like an answer for.

OK, since no-one else is going to, the answer is this:

The permanent members of the UN Security Council (with the right to veto resolutions they are not directly involved in) are America, Britain, China, France, Russia.

At the time, these were the 5 world powers in that they had both thermonuclear weapons AND the means of delivery. That made them the "500lb Gorillas" in world affairs.

Of course, since the late 1950's many other countries have joined the "Nuclear Club" in that they have developed nuclear weapons, but thus far it's still the same 5 nations (? in the case of the former USSR) who have the means of delivery to anywhere in the world at will.

Of course this may change if North Korea, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel etc... Burkina Faso ever discover the efficiency of "Fedex Next Day Guaranteed".

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[wmw999 2,560]

Great Britain and France, at the end of the war, had vast experience in managing large networks of colonies. Of course, they also were on the winning side -- note that Germany does not have a vote.

If France were seen to abuse its power, then a way to remove a country that abuses its power would probably be found. I'm not sure that disagreeing with the US is seen as abuse of power, even if some of the reasons are venal. And it's the UN's decision, not ours. Just as it's not Texas's problem if the mayor of Washington DC has a couple of cocaine convictions.

Heck, we have our own selfish reasons for what we do. That's human, and nationalistic, nature.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you this. In this day and age why does Fance have a perminant seat on the SC with Veto power?

Serious question that I would like an answer for.

OK, since no-one else is going to, the answer is this:

The permanent members of the UN Security Council (with the right to veto resolutions they are not directly involved in) are America, Britain, China, France, Russia.

At the time, these were the 5 world powers in that they had both thermonuclear weapons AND the means of delivery. That made them the "500lb Gorillas" in world affairs.

France is a permanent member of the security council because they are a nuclear power. The other four nuclear power members are permanent for the same reason.

Key differences: France and China have not ratified the Non-proliferation treaty. Both have briefs on deposit with the US, UK, and Russia (as of 1992) but no ratification action has been taken otherwise. The issue with China not ratifying it is that they want the agreement signed by Taiwan to be deemed null and void. France's exceptions are not noted, but they're submitted for accession to the treaty (something to do with nuclear fuels).

The effectiveness of the NPT can best be exemplified by the situation of South Africa (which was a cooperative arrangement).

The ineffectiveness can be summed up with Israel and Iraq, as it was France that sold both of them their nuclear reactors (before France acceded to the NPT).

DPRK withdrew, India and Pakistan are not signed to the treaty.

Interestingly, Iran is part of the treaty, so is Syria. Syria doesn't concern me too much. Iran may be up to something sneaky, but it's tough to call. Fas.org provides some background, but otherwise a lot of conjecture.

I think China and Russia pose an overall greater threat than some of the more "regional" terrors.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[BBKid 0]

Quote

You are wrong thinking that we think the UN is useless because of 1 decision.

The point I was making is that the when the US and UK failed to get a 'second' resolution, the UN was blamed for being useless, and modern politicians started saying "it's always been like this, look at Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia etc." thus bringing attention to the people.

Granted, people posting on these forums are far more knowledgeable than the majority of people in Britain, France or the U.S., and you may have noticed what you perceive to be problems with the UN, but if this resolution had succeeded, there wouldn't be the current furore about the efficacy of the UN which we hear from America. Hindsight can prove or disprove any point, depending on how you present the evidence.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[cgross 1]

I agree with you in that, if a second resolution passed, we wouldn't here AS MUCH talk about the UN's uselessness. However, it is and has always been a bit of a useless forum. The idea is right, and so are the principals, but it appears to me looking through history that they tend to be procrastinator (spelling?).

I know what you are saying, but when you have a group made up of so many nations, there (in my opinion) is no way to get anything resolved. Every country has their own interest and agenda as top priority. And it should be that way to a point.

I had no problem with the French opposing the war, or the Chineese, or the Germans. That is their right. They could have just chose not to vote. The US is mad at France more than anyone, because they went out of their way to get other coutries to vote against us.

One could say, "well the US went to other countries to get them on board". That is true, but our object was to show those countries it was in their best interest. While France went out of its way to "Obstruct" US negotiations.
That only means ONE thing to me.
FRANCE wanted to keep SH in power. They didn't mind him killing and raping and all that shit. Chirac wanted SH to stay. And to me, that is sad.

(disclaimer.. these are my views)
Chris

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

That only means ONE thing to me.
FRANCE wanted to keep SH in power. They didn't mind him killing and raping and all that shit. Chirac wanted SH to stay. And to me, that is sad.

Could not have said it better!!

[Faber 0]

sorry to see that some one at this forum keep komplaining about different nations.

Try to be a skydiver.dont look black and white.
this is the reasson to lossing good input from some cuntries.

Ps.becours Germany had a bad leader under ww1-2 dosnt mean they are bad now.Becours the French leaders have their oppinion it dossnt mean that the people like it.
and dont through rocks when you live in glass house..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[miked10270 0]

Quote

dont through rocks when you live in glass house..

Especially NOT when you're actually inside the 'said glass house.

Personally, while I'll happily take the piss out of the French at any opportunity, that is simply because they're our closest neighbours and as such we're bound to them by unbreakable ties of jealousy, hatred & suspicion (oh yeah, and a tunnel).

The fact that they tried to charge harbour landing fees of 8.50 francs (or 1 Reichmark) per embarking passenger at Dunkirk a year or 63 back is neither here nor there.

Sorry, this was supposed to be a pro French post but instinct just sort of kicked in.

Err... The French smell nice (if you like garlic), they can be relied on to eat all the food that no-one else will (snails, frogs legs, truffles, french wine), they have special machines to scoop up dog poo off the streets (which strangely doesn't alter the small of Paris at all), they do a nice line in gift statues and pointy tower things you can jump off (if you're a female, black, 6'2", exceptionally aggressive jamaican), in any military situation they can be relied on 100% (to do what I'll not say).

Yeah, love the French, if it weren't for them we'd be next door to the Swiss.

But it could be worse, we could be next door to Texans.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Faber 0]

Quote

love the French, if it weren't for them we'd be next door to the Swiss.

I like Swiss better,i think they have some nice "rocks"you can jump from

It were just a thourgth i had

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[jannu 0]

Hello!
When you think/say that UN is useless, I assume you only think about the SC.. That's not really all there is...
Think, WHO, UNICEF, ILO, UNCHR, FAO, IAEA, ICAO... just to name few..
All these organizations are doing really important things in the world WE ALL live in.
So it's not useless if France decided that war should be avoided... you know what I mean bean..

[AirMail 0]

Quote

they can be relied on to eat all the food that no-one else will (snails, frogs legs, truffles, french wine)

Please don't try to tell me that no-one else will drink French wine. Their wine is a hell of a lot better than any wine made in Britian.

Patrick

--
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Postal Rodriguez, Muff 3342

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

french wine)

Please don't try to tell me that no-one else will drink French wine. Their wine is a hell of a lot better than any wine made in Britian.

You unpatriot, Commie, Fascist, French Froggie, Garlic-smelly Surrender-Monkey lover!!!!

For even daring to suggest that some poxy French vinegar & antifreeze mix could even begain to compare to a Californian wine, or even the Texan equivalent (MD20/20 - Orange flavour)...!

I'd confidently expect that your city & state politicians will read this grossly unpatriotic and inaccurate (Britain doesn't make any wine) post and will do a "Homeland Security" on your home DZ[;P]

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[BBKid 0]

Quote

Quote

love the French, if it weren't for them we'd be next door to the Swiss.

I like Swiss better,i think they have some nice "rocks"you can jump from

It were just a thourgth i had

I like Switzerland and the Swiss, I just don't like having to remortgage my house to afford a sandwich. Also, Cadbury's chocolate is nicer (I've got it on my mind since I gave it up for Lent).

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"