-
They must have known we’d go to war without them so doesn’t they’re inability to control the US weaken their position in the EU?
-
When we do go to war with Iraq and install democratic leadership there is no way in hell the new leadership will honor previous Iraq-French business deals if it was France that thwarted the overthrow of a dictator in the first place.
So what are they thinking?
Jeepers, Kid C, have we gone to war, with or without anybody, already? And have we installed that democratic (good possibiliy of that!) regime? And who’s to say it, democratic or not, won’t honor previous Iraq-business deals?
Regarding the honoring of previous contracts:
Well, I suppose, if that guy–Barhim Salih–is running the show; but highly unlikely. But, you never know. Thanks for the link.
I think you missed the fact that a fee other EU countries oppose a war on Iraq as well, KidC. France’s position in the EU is not weakened by their anti-war stance. Conversely, the UK’s position in the EU has suffered because of its willingness to back the US up in a potential war.
Further, you say:
If the US installs a new regime, it is per definition not going to be a democratic one. Democratic governments typically are elected by the native people of a country, rather than installed by a foreign nation.
With regard to the linked article: mr Salih is a Kurd. This means he represents a minority in Iraq. Since Saddam has pretty much tried to wipe all Iraqi Kurds off the face of the earth, it is no surprise that mr Salih would certainly tear up all existing contract signed by a mr Hussein - should he become the new leader of Iraq. I can assure you he won’t, though. FWIW, I do of course sincerely hope the Kurds will get a better (read: equal) position in Iraqi society after all has been said and done. They’ve been treated like animals by both Iraq and Turkey for far, far too long.
In case you missed it, KidC, France is not trying to “control the US.” What France it doing is exercising its right as a member state of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council to vote on issues of global importance that come before the UN. If you think that France is the only country to act in this way during the half century of UN existence, maybe you should go to their website and look at how many times the United States has vetoed UN Security Council resolutions.
And what’s the deal with all the France-bashing on these Boards. I know it might be convenient for all the pro-war people to pretend that France is the only stumbling block to US policy, but pretending doesn’t make it true; there are quite a few other countries making cogent arguments against the Bush/Blair push push for war.
And, just to re-emphasize what Coldy said, a government installed by an invading power is NOT a democratic government.
Well the installed government will be provisional; I think you know what I meant. I’m not debating here though; I’m trying to understand what they might be thinking given a certain outcome (which is admittedly laden with assumptions). I mistakenly said “power within the EU” - what I meant to say was “power over anyone.” France’s position on the war has not strengthened their position in the EU as much as it has weakened the entire EU. They are splitting their own platform for power at home as well as their relationship with the US.
I don’t believe any new government in Iraq would honor agreements with French companies because 1. The US will ask specifically ask them not to as quid pro quo for “liberation” 2. Why the hell should they when they can renegotiate from a stronger position?
3. The new government will view those French companies that have contracts with Saddam’s regime as supporting the dictator.
It just seems like they have so little to gain and so much to lose.
There is division in the EU with regards to this war. But how does that weaken the EU, precisely? The member states are many and diverse: they can’t be expected to agree on everything. Also, the EU is a union in the economic sense of the word - it doesn’t have to present a uniformous view on a war, any war.
Seeing your revised question: how do you think France’s anti-war stance decreases any “power” they have over “anyone” (other nations, you mean?)? France is a rather significant member of the United Nations, and a has a Security Council seat to boot. I’d say they’re pretty damn important in this matter.
So do you think the US, after overthrowing Hussein, will install a “provisionary” government? If they’re wise, they won’t: the only viable solution for post-Saddam Iraq is a democratic election process supervised by the UN. Anything initiated by the US alone will immediately be branded as “regime change”, and looking at historical anecdotes in this context, “regime change” is not the positive term the current administration wants it to be.
As far as the contracts are concerned, the answer is easy: a new, pragmatic government might retain existing contracts if they’re profitable, and it might use the “it’s a Saddam-contract” cop-out if they’re not.
OI believe France is under the impression that it is a sovereign nation with the right to act in a manner that serves its interests best.
Perhaps the French are thinking that standing up for their principles is more important than staying on Bush’s good side or their reputation within the EU? Maybe after being at the center of so many centuries of war and bloodshed on the European Continent the French have learned a thing or two about the futility of war that we havn’t? Has anyone stopped to think for a minute that maybe they have a good reason to oppose this war and that we should listen to what they have to say intead of just stuffing our ears with “freedom fries” so we can’t hear their objections?
It’s funny how both sides of the war debate attribute petty selfish reasons to the other side, but argue from a principled position. I’ve seen too many antiware folks declare that Bush wants war just for oil imperialism or as revenge for daddy. Likewise the hawks in the debate always seem to claim that the countries that oppose the war base their positions on either power politics or cozy profits with the current regime.
In truth both sides are basing their positions on priniciples, the hawks believe that Iraq is a threat and that dimplomacy has already failed. The doves see more room for dimplomacy, backed by the credible threat of force, to disarm and contain Iraq. In this case I agree with the French and the rest of the antiwar camp. Dimplomacy and inspections seem to be making progress and should be given a few more months before declaring their success or failure. The antiwar camp also believes that by playing brinkmanship with his **allies ** over Iraq Bush is harming the credibility of the UN, the inspections and of any future Iraqi government. These are very real concerns and should be taken seriously, just as the threat Iraq poses to regional and international stability should be taken seriously.
One other thing, ** KidC** you rather casually state:
You come across as being rather naive about the social, ethnic, religious and political realities of Iraqi society. The Iraqi people fall into roughly three groups: Shite (pronounced she-ite) and Sunni Muslims and Kurds. These three groups do not like each other and prior to the Europeans drawing lines on a map several decades ago they had no common peaceful history together. All three of them have scores to settle with the others, scores going back centuries. The Shites are the majority in Iraq but have been ruled and oppressed by the Sunni minority at least since the Baath party took control of Iraq, maybe longer I don’t remember. The Shites want to control their on destiny for once, the Sunnis are afriad (rightfully so) being slaughtered by Shites once Hussien is ousted and the Kurds have been shat upon by everyone in the region for their entire history and just want to be left alone.
In short installing a democratic government in Iraq post war will not be easy, nor cheap. It will take many, many years to get these people to get along and for whatever government that emerges postwar to have any legitimacy it will have to be supported and protected by the so called international community.
France, Germany et al. seem to recognize this fact, and realize that it will be far easier to accomplish this after a realitivley peaceful ousting of Saddam in a largely disarmed Iraq than after a chaotic and violent regime change following a US led war.
I agree - post-Saddam Iraq is basically a potential former Yugoslavia, if you will.
I just assumed France was influenced by the views its population, the majority of whom don’t support a war they see as unnecessary. Isn’t that called democracy?
Let me hurry!! to say that Shiite is spelled with two "i"s. Very critical.
I’ll agree with you that I’m naive about Iraqi culture, politics, etc. but if you believe some of what you’ve said here then I’m not the only naive one around here (re: inspections making progress). Perhaps my own media is just too biased - I read the NYT, watch CNN, and read bloggers like InstaPundit, USS Clueless, and Little Green Footballs. I’d love to hear a cogent argument that France is really just interested in peace (and that’s not sarcasm).
First off whoops on the Shite vs Shiite spelling, I’ve seen it spelled both ways in print and just went with the one that required less typing, shoulda double checked before posting though as one i is incorrect.
Now as for me be being naive about weapons inspectoins etc… I’d say the fact that Iraq is actively destroying weapons Blix and co. turned up is a sign that at least * some * progress is being made. Whether or not this apparent progress will lead to full disarment or a stable containment of Iraq remains to be seen, like I said the inspections need a few more months before we’ll know if this will work or not. If not then it will be time to make good on that credible use of force.
The most cogent argument I can make about France’s sincerity about wanting a peaceful solution just for peace’s sake would be the massive anti-war demonstrations throughout France (and the rest of Europe for that matter) in the past couple of months. While I have no doubts that business interests in France have just as much influence over government as they do here, something tells me that the hundreds of thousands of French citizens marching in protest against war in Iraq have no financial interests in Iraqi business deals. I’d say the government in France is following the will of the French people in this case. There are probably factors other than the will of the people influencing the French government on this issue that I’m not aware of, but you can’t ignore the fact that the people of France don’t want this war to happen.
First off whoops on the Shite vs Shiite spelling, I’ve seen it spelled both ways in print and just went with the one that required less typing, shoulda double checked before posting though as one i is incorrect.
Now as for me be being naive about weapons inspectoins etc… I’d say the fact that Iraq is actively destroying weapons Blix and co. turned up is a sign that at least * some * progress is being made. Whether or not this apparent progress will lead to full disarment or a stable containment of Iraq remains to be seen, like I said the inspections need a few more months before we’ll know if this will work or not. If not then it will be time to make good on that credible use of force.
The most cogent argument I can make about France’s sincerity about wanting a peaceful solution just for peace’s sake would be the massive anti-war demonstrations throughout France (and the rest of Europe for that matter) in the past couple of months. While I have no doubts that business interests in France have just as much influence over government as they do here, something tells me that the hundreds of thousands of French citizens marching in protest against war in Iraq have no financial interests in Iraqi business deals. I’d say the government in France is following the will of the French people in this case. There are probably factors other than the will of the people influencing the French government on this issue that I’m not aware of, but you can’t ignore the fact that the people of France don’t want this war to happen.
First off whoops on the Shite vs Shiite spelling, I’ve seen it spelled both ways in print and just went with the one that required less typing, shoulda double checked before posting though as one i is incorrect.
Now as for me be being naive about weapons inspectoins etc… I’d say the fact that Iraq is actively destroying weapons Blix and co. turned up is a sign that at least * some * progress is being made. Whether or not this apparent progress will lead to full disarment or a stable containment of Iraq remains to be seen, like I said the inspections need a few more months before we’ll know if this will work or not. If not then it will be time to make good on that credible use of force.
The most cogent argument I can make about France’s sincerity about wanting a peaceful solution just for peace’s sake would be the massive anti-war demonstrations throughout France (and the rest of Europe for that matter) in the past couple of months. While I have no doubts that business interests in France have just as much influence over government as they do here, something tells me that the hundreds of thousands of French citizens marching in protest against war in Iraq have no financial interests in Iraqi business deals. I’d say the government in France is following the will of the French people in this case. There are probably factors other than the will of the people influencing the French government on this issue that I’m not aware of, but you can’t ignore the fact that the people of France don’t want this war to happen.
On the CNN website, Sunday evening, there is an interview with Chirac. Christiane A. asks some direct questions, and Chirac handles them pretty well.
While there are some pretty decent reasons to go to war in Iraq, neither Britain nor the US have made them.
Don’t get me wrong: Hussein is a bad mofo, and I think he should be removed from power. But a war on Iraq will slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians who hate Hussein as much as Bush does, and it’s unlikely that it will actually succeed in killing Hussein.
France (and Germany, and most of the world, including many citizens in the US) recognizes this, and believes the human cost of a war is too high.
France et al are also worried about what’s going to happen next. If Bush is so bloodthirsty* as to sacrifice Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds in Iraq because it’s in the American interest to do so, where will he lay the smack down next?
[sub]* Feel free to substitute other words like criminally dense, stupid, lazy, lacking in empathy, scared, close-minded, etc…