In fairness, we should assume that the French are acting in an honorable fashion and that they truly believe that the diplomatic process has not been exhausted. Everybody involved has been playing some kind of game of bluff and nobody seems to be willing to fold. France obviously thinks there is something in the pot worth the risk they’re taking.
[ul]
[sup]Stay tuned for the show of cards.[/sup][/ul]
You know… some observations of mine, as an Australian all these miles away, are as follows…
(1) In many respects, the US and Great Britain are attempting to go aout this as honourably as possible… certainly, the Soviet Union didn’t ask for a favourable UN Resolution before invading Afghanistan in 1979.
(2) France was pivotal in approving and organising NATO action in Kosovo in 1999. They were hardly unsupportive or obstructionist at the time. It’s their right to offer a differing opinion - which they choose to do on occasion.
(3) The US and Great Britain may, or might not, have intelligence information which has yet to see the light of day. Perhaps this is why the US in particular is so adamant about the need for action - RIGHT NOW. More realistically, I suspect the answer has more to do with statesmanship. The US Administration has an awful lot riding on a successful campaign in Iraq - far more so than merely subduing the B’aath party and enforcing a regime change…
(4) If the US were to back down now, regardless of the UN’s vote on a new resolution, she would lose incredible amounts of “face” in the eyes of the region. There would be astonishing amounts of cheering and jeering amongst the various militant Islamic groups in the Middle East. Some real common taunts would be along the lines of “So you see you Great Americans? You are not so great, now, yes?” Conversely, if the US goes into Iraq and totally, utterly overwhelms the place with a series of perfectly implemented “knockout blows”, it will send an unbelievably “steel eyed” message to the Middle East… “People of the Middle East, on Spetember 11th, 2001 - you entered into a ballgame with the USA, and now, we are here, and this is the endgame…”
(5) The political landscape in the Middle East will change markedly if Point (4) above goes off smoothly in the USA’s favour… many, many militant Islamists won’t like it, but the reality will be the reality. The message will be this… “Guerilla warfare, and terrorism, ultimately only forces the armies of the West to invade us - totally…”
(6) The French, ultimately, are expressing their opinions in a civilised manner in a civilised forum - and the fact that their opinions, on this matter, differ to those of the USA and Great Britain, is well, that’s life. I don’t have a problem with it. And I truly don’t feel the US Administration is overly offended either actually. It’s democracy in action - and it’s good to see.
What’s wrong with France’s actions, when the US-UK are pushing for an unjustifiable war?
CyberPundit
This fails to address the question. It’s not why France is opposing a war, it’s why France is leading opposition to a war, to the extent of seriously affecting its relationship with the world’s largest economy, and with one of it’s major European partners. When all else is resolved, one way or the other, the opposition of the French will be the one memory that is going to stick around the longest.
So again, can you offer a reason why?
Urban Ranger
There’s nothing wrong with what France is doing. Every country must pursue its own national interests. My question is in what way does pissing off the US Administration to the degree that France is doing right now serve the interests of the French people?
Can anyone who asserts it’s economic self-interest truly put their hand on their heart and say that the trade ramifications to France of opposing the US would be better than those of losing Iraqi business, illegal or otherwise? I don’t have any figures, unfortunately, but I cannot believe France needs Iraqi business more than it needs US business.
>In fact the US imports more oil from Iraq than France.
What about as a percentage of GDP or total imports?
That’s somewhat different from how I interpreted your original OP.
The obvious answer as to why France supports the peace process under 1441 rather than the war process under the proposed (UN) Resolution is because it doesn’t want to be an amoral tool of US foreign policy and thinks, by attempting to take some kind of moral high ground and winning this debate, it re-positions itself on the High Table of international diplomacy (Crirac ego thang, as much as anything). Plus many smaller things (in terms of French national interest) of which the US establishing a stepping stone into Central Asia and control of the oil is the most significant.
The bigger still picture is that France – as the senior diplomatic partner in the Axis of not-quite-evil-yet (together with Germany and, in this instance, Russia) - seek to demonstrate the US does not – as it has rather assumed in recent decades – have carte blanche on the world stage; That a ‘power block’ is forming in the vacuum left by the demise of the USSR.
That doesn’t mean a whole lot just now but much of this huffing and puffing is about putting future US administrations on notice. Of course, some would argue the EU could do with a cohesive foreign policy before it starts trying to throw economic / diplomatic muscle around at this level, but others might say ya gotta start somewhere.
Be sure, very much indeed is happening. The boxers aren’t circling circling each other. Yet (and please, no one make stupid leaps into thinking about military confrontations).
The answer is oil, with the bonus of getting to feel important and anti-american thrown in. But is mainly about oil. France has been trying since the early 1990s to get the sanctions against Iraq reduced or removed. France is the principal reason that inspections were halted in 1998. Why?
According to the Energy Information Administration, “as of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia.”
What does France have at stake? According to the same source:
"The largest of Iraq’s oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-30 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. Majnoon was reportedly brought onstream (under a “national effort” program begun in 1999) in May 2002 at 50,000 bbl/d, with output possibly reaching 100,000 bbl/d by the end of 2002 (according to former Oil Minister Rashid). Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of 450,000 bbl/d within two years or so at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. Initial output from the field is expected to be around 440,000 bbl/d of 42o API crude, but may reach 500,000 bbl/d with more extensive development. Eventually, Majnoon could produce significantly more oil than that, possibly well above 1 million bbl/d.
In July 2001, angered by France’s perceived support for the U.S. “smart sanctions” plan, Iraq announced that it would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well. **Iraq also announced that it was inclined to favor Russia, which has been supporting Iraq at the U.N. Security Council, on awarding rights to Majnoon and another large southern oil field, Bin Umar. **As of February 2003, Russian company Zarubezhneft reportedly was negotiating a contract to develop Bin Umar. The status of TotalFinaElf, which had previously expressed interest in the field, was not clear. In February 2003, TotalFinaElf said that it was confident regarding its Majnoon contract, regardless of the Iraqi government in power. "
(Emphasis added)
Obviously, the required investment becomes more expensive if there is damage to the oil fields themselves (via Saddam) or to the infrastructure (which is already in bad shape).
France has played to its own national interests. They know the American government will not sanction them. They also know that if the are somehow successful in averting a war, they will stand to make billions and billions of dollars.
Of course, a second possible reason is that France is selling military parts to Iraq in violation of UNSCR 661. I suspect the French have more than a little to hide. The recent sale of Mirage parts to Iraq is bad enough, but I suspect that we will find the problem is far worse. Some members of Congress are already calling for an investigation.
There may be philosophical reasons to oppose the war, and the French may well have philosophical problems with the idea of a war. IMHO, that is not why they are doing this, though. They are flexing some political muscle that is only present because of their dubious inclusion on the Security Council and because their economic interests are at stake. Personally, I have no problem with that, but I think that France may have overplayed its hand. As for the idea that the French don’t trade that much with Iraq, there are two important points to consider: First, current indications are that there is more trade going on than is reported. Second, the issue in the future for France is not trade with Iraq, but actual partnership (on very generous terms) in the oil business. These deals were signed by Iraq because they were in Saddam’s best interests, not in the best interests of the Iraqi people. When the US sets up a new government, these deals will likely be revoked or substantially renegotiated.
This is a honest question, did the U.S.A asked for permission before invading Panama, Granada, Vietnam, Cuba (that was a C.I.A. operative), etc. To my knowledge the answer is a rotund no.
I have so many problems with this paragraph. First of all “loosing face” has to be the worst reason to start a war that will kill thousands, and more importantly the american goverment should have thought about that before embarking to a war with no clear legitimacy and with no consensus. Second, do you realize that sending a message to an entire region for the wrongdoings of individuals is not the best way to win them over, and are you prepare to send a clear message also to Israel, because last time I checked they were also middle eastern and part of the problems of the region.
I have been increasingly wondering about this same question for weeks. What do they gain by shooting themselves in the foot like this. The most they will accomplish would be to use a veto to keep the UN on the sidelines in a major event in the world regarding the world’s stability. If the UN does that, it pretty much nulls their mandate and makes them irrelevent on the exact situation it was created to face.
In regards to France in particular, saying it is purely for oil is as rediculous as putting that tag on the US reasons. BUT, saying that this is an expected, or even reasonable, move by the French in the light that they can disagree if they want totally ignores the vehemence of the disagreement and putting it into context.
The French government cares about the Iraqi people about as much as they care about the Kosavars. And I agree 100% that they are doing it in their interests alone. But what could those interests be? Like others have said. Their interests in Iraq do not overshadow their interests they could be damaging with playing obstructionist like this.
The arguement that they are just listening to their people is bit naive. Yes, it does help Chirac’s dismal approval ratings by “standing up” to the Yanks. But that can easily be done by a lock-step opposition like the ther oposing countries are doing. And the threat of Abstention. They have went beyond that though. It seems they are fighting to stop action against Iraq as much as the US/UK are fighting for it. That is not just disagreement. That is an agenda. And general disagreement or just being anti-war does not cut it at this level of diplomatic relations.
I lean towards the arguements that they have something to hide, eceonomic interests, and a powerplay against the US. They all seem credible to an extent. But saying that an individual one of these is the only reason leaves me skeptical without substantial damning evidence.
One thing I am confident of though. The French have a powerful reson to do almost anything they can to stop a war. And I think that after the war that will happen within the next few weeks, more light will be shed on the “French Connection”. And I am also confident that the reprisals agaiinst the French will not be as minimal as we all think. Many government officials are taking ther actions personal. Especially Bush. And the growing resentment in the states by the average American is starting to make an economic dent. And once we go to war, and put our children in danger, we will remember those that helped us and those that got in our way. That is the overriding reasoon I think the French are blatantly shooting themselves in the foot, and that their Agenda has something more than suspect pushing them.
“it’s why France is leading opposition to a war…”
I explained it. Because it can. It has much more freedom than Russia and China which are poor countries which have to worry more about the implications of US economic policy on their economies. France is a rich country and part of the EU which is roughly the economic equal of the US. As for other countries France simply has a lot more diplomatic clout than, say, Belgium or Malaysia.
Despite this France is hardly alone in the leadership against war. Germany has been about as outspoken and even Russia despite its vulnerablites has been quite active. The fact is that the US is in a minority in the world on this issue. France is not the reason for this.
Serenitynow,
Your “evidence” isn’t worth much because those deals aren’t worth anything unless sanctions are lifted which the US is unlikely to allow as long as Saddam is in power. Furthermore as I said all the US has to do is to promise that French debts will be respected after war and that France will get a reasonable share of the presumably larger post-Saddam pie. It would have been a lot easier to get French support if what you said was true.
And note that even a “multi-billion” dollar deal is minute for the trillion dollar French economy.
Oh for sure Estilicon - I agree entirely with your response there - especially to Point (4). Yet, my perception of the “bind” that the US Administration has painted itself into remains nonetheless.
Recently, Dick Rumsfeld was interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS and quite candidly admitted that this dillemna now exists for the US Administration. I’m pretty sure the words he used were “Obviously if the new UN resolution doesn’t pass we’ll be at a crossroads where the only direction for us and our Allies will be to move forward regardless…”
Certainly, there are two sides to the “perception” aspect of this dillemna - and the two perceptions you can arrive at are totally determined by which side of the fence you’re sitting on. And it’s nothing new either. It’s quite possible to argue that the Vietnam War, for example, was drawn out for many years longer than it truly ever needed to be due to issue of “losing face”. Or, for that matter, the Falklands War arguably never needed to take place either if the junta of Argentina at the time was not so concerned about “losing face” after seizing the Maldina’s. [sp?]
There’s nothing noble about it, of course - not for a second.
And yet, it’s a dillemna the US Administration has brought upon itself - going all the way back to the “Axis of Evil” speech. Prior to that, the US still had abundant good will amongst almost every nation in the world regarding the War on Terror. Indeed, Iran in particular was making some truly warm overtures at the time - and then? Bam… a king hit to the face…
Almost overnight, a sea change took place - and President Bush, rightly or wrongly, upped the ante into a new quantum level - and the militants in the Middle East merely called it for what they saw - a claim by the United States that it can fix any problem, anywhere, anytime.
With hindsight, after taking Afghanistan out of the picture in December 2001, the smartest thing President Bush could have done, would have been to have made a personal visit to Iran. He should have gone there and made some serious motherfucker efforts to win the Iranians over in spirit of detente and good will. And they would have come across too. They would have helped in a war on Iraq. There’s some old wounds still festering between the Iranians and Iraqis. A grand opportunity lost, I rather think.
Now, bear in mind, I’m America’s biggest ally - I lived there as a youngster and I love the country, and I love her people. But I’ve said it elsewhere, and I’ll say it again… the Iraq issue is actually the worst punch in the guts to the true war on terror imaginable - because it seems destined to eviscorate any remaining good will the US still had with Middle Eastern countries.
Such is the nature of tribalism on a national scale. As the old joke goes… “I’m quite happy to strangle my own mother but don’t YOU dare say a bad word about her OK?”
And that, basically is how most Middle Eastern residents perceive the US Administration at the moment - in the context of moving in on Iraq - at least, that’s how it seems to me, I should say. Now, imagine how things would be if Iran was coming out and making statements on a weekly basis stating that the US is correct to be following such a course? At the very least, imagine how divided the Arabian countries in the region would be on the issue? A totally different landscape I would think.
Still, I support the decision to go in, now that it’s been made - and all I can say is “God’s speed to the soldiers on the ground”. Here’s hoping the accuracy and quality of intelligence is greater than ever before.
This is not an explanation. Obviously it can, by which I presume you mean, “it can afford to and has the power to do so.” The question is what is the motivation behind their position? Obviously, they feel strongly, or they would not take such risks as they are taking. You seem to think that France is so rich that multiple billions of dollars do not matter to its economy. I disagree with you on that.
We can’t pin this on French opposition to war in general, since they had no problem with the first gulf war and IIRC spearheaded the effort to get the US involved in the Milosovich affair. To my mind that leaves two obvious options: economics and politics. They have been caught selling mirage parts since January. Assuming that is the tip of the iceberg (which is not that far-fetched given the timing of the transactions), they have ample political reason to not want anyone going in and finding out what they have been doing. (By the way, keep an eye on the news, because it appears that Germany may have been doing this as well.) Their activities on the Security Council with regard to Iraq have certainly been aimed at reducing the pressure on Iraq. Why?
You used the word “evidence,” I didn’t. I think they are facts to be considered, they are not proof in and of themselves. I considered your point about economics before posting, and while it has merit, I don’t think that it fully answers the issue for the following reasons:
First, a million barrels of oil a day on one field alone adds up to a some serious money. After subtracting costs, over 5 billion dollars a year. And that is only Majnoon. Such a deal would be a major boon to any economy in the world. Second, those deals are dead if the US invades because they are ridiculously one-sided and are patently unfair to the Iraqui people. The US is not going to hold Iraq to those agreements and France knows that it cannot argue with a straight face that it should. Looking at the deals, one could reasonably reach the conclusion that France got those deals by supporting Iraq in the UN. Third, those deals are lucrative now, because Iraq is still able to export oil under the “oil for food” program. Fourth, the issue is not the one-time repaying of debts, it is the honoring of lucrative, long term contracts. Fifth, Iraq has already begun mining its oil fields in the north, which could hurt what France ultimately gains if there is war. A promise by the US to honor the contracts avails little if there is $40 billion in damage to the oil fields in question. ($40 billion is not an actual figure, just an example).
Couple the above with the almost assured evidence of French violations of UNSCRs regarding trade with Iraq, and I think you have some motivation there. Is it enough motivation to make France take such risks? That is a matter of opinion. I think that when you consider that they staked out their position long before the current crisis could have been foreseen, and consider their distaste for American power and America’s use of power, there is ample reason to conclude that these are part of France’s current motivations. If they are not possible motivations, then what do you say is France’s motivation?
The 1st Gulf War was much easier to justify, since Iraq had initiated it by invading Kuwait. This makes a huge difference to a lot of people and countries.
By “because it can” I meant that there are a lot of countries opposed to the war but France is at the forefront because it has more diplomatic clout than most of them so it can act more freely. This whole thread might have a point if there was general consensus in the world about attacking Iraq and France was one of the few hold-outs. But that isn’t the case. France is hardly isolated here.
As for the “risks” France may well judge that the risks of war are greater for the region and for itself including the risks of inflaming its own Arab population.
“Couple the above with the almost assured evidence of French violations of UNSCRs regarding trade with Iraq”
Do you have a source for this?
“First, a million barrels of oil a day on one field alone adds up to a some serious money. After subtracting costs, over 5 billion dollars a year”
Again a source for this? A million barrels a day is 40% of Iraq’s current production IIRC. It would take years and tens of billions of dollars of investment to produces those kinds of returns. At 20 dollars a barrel this would produce a revenue of about 7-8 billion dollars a year. I don’t know how much will be left after the cost of capital, the costs of operation and the share for the Iraqis.
Anyway the main point is that as long as Saddam is in power it’s highly unlikely that French companies will ever build those fields. So you have a very slim chance of a large profit versus a much higher chance of a moderate profit if the US gives France a reasonable share of the post-Iraq pie. The latter probably makes more economic sense.
“Third, those deals are lucrative now, because Iraq is still able to export oil under the “oil for food” program”
I don’t think French companies are making significant profits out of oil-for-food. Again do you have a source?
“A promise by the US to honor the contracts avails little if there is $40 billion in damage to the oil fields in question”
France won’t have to pay for this damage. But it will get the benefit of any post-Saddam deals that it manages to make. The main damage done will be to the Iraqis not the French.
Anyway you could make the same argument for the US desire to go to war; ie. that it’s doing it because it’s shut out of developing Iraq oil now and that it wants to remove the regime so that its oil companies get a share of the pie later. I don’t believe this is the main reason for war but there is no reason to believe France has a larger economic stake in this than the US.
I agree that this accounts for at least part (and probably a lot more) of the reasons behind the three European “Axis of Opposition” countries. So what does German have to gain, assuming it is acting in its own self-interest?
er… two of the three countries, that is.
BTW a point I forgot to mention: France is an oil importing country. If the war goes well and Iraq produces a lot more oil it will benefit from a lower world price. This will likely dwarf whatever limited benefit it’s going to get from those Saddam oil contracts.
Why are the people opposed to war? I would say that the German people are overcompensating out of guilt over past German aggression, combined with a lingering resentment of the US over the fact that we were the primary funders of the rebuilding that took place after WWII. They’re not just kind of opposed to this war, they’re vehemently opposed to war, period. They seem to be of the opinion that any war, anytime, for any reason is wrong.
Why is the government opposed to war? Schroeder is a notoriously unpopular president. The only way he was able to win re-election was through a platform that consisted primarily of vehement anti-Americanism. By painting the US as the devil, and promising to keep Germany out of a war, he can divert attention from the fact that Germany is going to hell in a handbasket, economically. After all this war business is over, Schroeder will be out on his ass, and he knows it. Being a prick towards the US is all he’s got. Cynical? Maybe - but that doesn’t mean it’s not also true.
Jeff
