AZC:
Yes, everyone agreed with France’s selection of Blix. But he was, in fact, France’s choice. It now seems readily apparent why he was France’s choice.
Jeff
Uh, spin it however you like, the UN was considering 25 names, France recommended Hans Blix, and everyone agreed.
How is that hand-picked?
But most important, it represents an event where France led a split UN membership to unanimous consensus. An accomplishment worthy of praise, not derision.
So you concede that France selected Blix, but object to the “hand-” prefix? Okay, fine, Blix was “picked” by France.
Yay, France. If instead of Blix, we had gone with someone “recommended” by the US, and this person had continually told the UN that inspections weren’t working, we should invade, let’s give up - while inspections demonstrably were working, and we were destroying WMDs left and right, I’m sure you would’ve commended the US, correct? After all, even though the guy the US picked was, in hind sight, a lousy choice, the important thing is that we got everybody to agree with us, right?
And you accuse me of spin…
Jeff
According to my Webster’s the definition of “handpicked” is either to “pick by hand” or (more relevantly) “to choose personally.” Since Blix received the endorsement of everyone, I see no justification for the term “handpicked.” It’s been duly noted that France recommended the candidate that was then unanimously endorsed. Oh, and if the US had recommended someone who was unanimously endorsed I don’t think anyone would have been implying that that individual was the US’s tool; any more than anyone has implied that 1441 was the US’s tool. (Gosh it’s amazing how much time we spend splitting hairs!)
With all due respect ElJeffe, I’ve never seen anyone trying to grasp at so distant a straw. I suggest we all move along in a peaceable manner …
And I note again how disengenuous such an assertion made by anyone is. France also supported a second resolution under certain circumstances. those circumstances being that Iraq defy 1441. The first test, if you recall, was the dossier that was admittedly proported to be not of the quality required by everyone except Iraq. Blix’c further reports left no doubt that Iraq had not “immediately, and willingly” dissarmed. France and UNMOVIC both admitted that any obvious cooperation by Iraq was only done by the threat of military action presented by the US/UK forces poised to attack. While that may not be a breach in literal terms, it is deffinately a breach in spirit.
And with France saying it would support military action if the inspectors certify that they cannot dissarm Iraq “within 6 months”. WTF is that?? The inspectors job was nver to dissarm Iraq. The UN never gave them that authority or job description. They wheere only there to verify that Iraq was in compliance and dissarming themselves willingly. Frances “certain circumstances” was a non-starter to begin with. None of the UNSC ever said that the inspectors should give them a certification, they where to report the cooperation and adherance of Iraq on 1441 and all other previous resolutions, period.
And the UNSC was supposed to act according to those reports, period. Not by the leave of UNMOVIC or the IAEA. For 12 years the inspectors never cerified Iraq as anything but in non-compliance. 6 months and Blix being able to say that they know Iraq is dissarmed is beyond contemptable.
France was in the lead with the anti-war countries. They promised a veto under any circumstances. And this was at the exact same time everyone knew the UK was trying to compromise with the new resolution.
How can you assert that France would have supported action under any circumstances from that one report, when you have the actions of France from the start of 1441 and quotes all over the news like this .
The only thing"shown" is that France allowed the use of force as much as it allowed a second resolution if the first was worded right.
Get it right, France promised to veto any resolution containing an automaticity for war under any circumstances. This just means it would have taken even longer than the spurious “120 days” France wanted to inspections to take, because then there would have had to be a THIRD resolution authorizing war.
And since the inspections only had the results they did because of the US’s buildup and threat of war, then that means France expected the US to maintain it’s built up presence there, costing the US billions of dollars, just so France can try and save it’s business dealings with Iraq.
And if the US pulled out during that 120 period, Iraq would simply have gone back to total noncompliance.
This doesn’t have a quote of what Powell actually said, and what he was asked. Does anybody have an actual quote? I’m genuinely curious as to the tone of the conversation.
occ, the Powell quote was included. It was “yes”. That was his one word response to a Charlie Rose question that was essentially, “Will France have to face serious consequences for its failure to support the US at the UNSC regarding Iraq?”
monster104 and Spite, this is getting old.
The issue of automaticity (allowing the US to determine if Iraq was in non-compliance unilaterally, and authorize force), goes all the way back to 1998. France, Russia, and China resisted all previous efforts for a UN resolution with automaticity. The original draft of 1441 included automaticity. The US agreed to remove it, and eventually received unanimous support for 1441.
Agreeing to automaticity would have effectively handed the power and authority of the UNSC over to the US. It should be of no surprise that neither France, Russia, or China would support it (even at the risk of pissing off the world’s only remaining superpower).
1441 required that Iraq readmit the UN inspectors. The US administration stated that Iraq wouldn’t let them in, but they did. It also required that Iraq provide a complete disclosure of their WoMD. However, failure to provide a complete disclosure wasn’t a violation. To be considered a violation, Iraq would also have to fail to cooperate with the inspectors to mitigate the violation. The US originally wanted an incomplete disclosure to be considered a violation. But they agreed to change the resolution in order to gain support.
The inspectors found violations (albeit minor). Iraq begrudginly cooperated with the destruction of the al-Samoud missiles. The inspectors had a long list of additional inspection and verification tasks remaining, when the US announced they were about to invade, and the UNSC recalled the inspectors.
France’s position was entirely consistent with the agreement reached with the US in 1441.
Clearly, Bush gambled that Iraq wouldn’t admit the inspectors, or if they did, that the inspectors would quickly find violations, particularly with help from US intelligence. That didn’t happen.
The record is quite clear.