The US, The UN and Iraq

Tanks on the streets and motorways!

Just heard what must have been a military jet patrolling over London Stansted airport.

set,

glad we occasionally strike a chord! In times of war its important to keep a sense of humour (in fact it might be some sort of natural defence mechanism?). When people are dying all around its only natural to laugh

Timberlandko wrote



Actually it has been a bad century or so for France.

In 1872 they started a needless war with Prussia and found themselves thoroughly defeated in the first campaign of the War at Sedan, the Emperor captured, and northeastern France occupied by the conquering Germans, who, soon afterwards, established a united Germany at Versailles (of all places).

In 1907 they bribed their way into an alliance with a Russia recovering, from a recent bout with revolution, and created a war strategy requiring quick mobilization and a Russian assault on East Prussia at the outset. This laid the foundation for a quite unstable network of alliances that just a few years later left Europe unable to contain even an incident in the Balkans without a descent into war. WWI was the result. As a result of French military lassitude a gruesome war of attrition was fought on French soil.

In 1935, despite an overwhelming French military superiority, France did nothing while Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, and soon afterwards annexed Austria and crushed whatever institutional resistance was left for him in Germany. Later when Hitler invaded Poland and war was declared, the French sat in their fortifications while the bulk of the German army was in Poland, and found themselves rapidly crushed when the Polish campaign was over. (In David Letterman's words the French waited for proof until it came marching through Paris with a German flag.)

After sitting out WWII, the French suddenly found the martial spirit to attempt to reconquer their Empire in Asia and North & Central Africa. After bloody wars in North Africa and Indochina, they left with virtually nothing to show for their efforts.

Now France wants to lead Europe, make itself the arbiter between the United States and the Islamic world, and perhaps have the kingmaker's role in the Persian Gulf. Can the world rely on this gang that can't shoot straight?

To their credit the French have assiduously exploited the 11 year old U.S. prohibition of any of its oil companies from doing or negotiating any business in Iraq, to develop very advantageous oil development contracts with the regime of Saddam Hussein. These address the largest undeveloped oil reserves in the Gulf Region, and could be worth billions. I, of course, would not suggest that such a consideration could influence the French Government, known as it is for always upholding the most principled positions on all political matters.

george, Your statement, "for always upholding the most principled positions on all political matters" said it all - unless one is deaf and dumb to history. Thanks for providing 'another' perspective on France. c.i.

George

I am really so pleased that France has seriously ****ed off Richard Perle, GW Bush, and by the sound of it yourself.

But its not just France taking a principled stance. Its Belgium Germany Russia and China, quite a lot of people when you add them all up. And 91% of Brits too are against war without a further UN resolution.

At this point, even C Powell is beginning to disappoint. c.i.

Sadly, yes! I wonder what the payoff was - $35b for African Aids?

The French have a longstanding fear of being controlled by other Powers. In today's world, however, they have insufficient power of their own, militarily, diplomatically, or economically, to assume any sort of Global Leadership. Further, French Self Interest generally manages to unravel any coalition The French manage to assemble.

The French attitude toward The US has its beginnings at least as far back as the early stages of WWII. They felt The US abandoned them in the face of the German Invasion, and that The US should have taken a more proactive stance re: German expansionsim in the late '30's. Matters were helped not in the least by The Allied sinking of The French Fleet in North Africa, and Allied hostile actions against other "Free French" forces in that theater at the time. The French were perturbed that The Allies did not directly engage The Germans on French soil untill the middle of 1944; they had lobbied vigorously for a much earlier Continental Invasion. France also felt slighted by Post War Partitioning, and they felt that other European Nations were given preferential treatment as regards rebuilding during The Marshal Plan Era.

The French requested US assistance in their Colonial Wars in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but received far less help than they had wanted. In the 1957 Suez Crisis, they were highly upset by US opposition to Anglo/French aims to appropriate The Suez Canal.

During the 50s and 60s, The French distanced themselves from both The US and Nato, becoming increasingly insular and exerting as much independence as they could manage, going so far as to develop their own nuclear capability and to pursuing an almost entirely home-based defense posture,designing and producing everything from their own tanks and planes to their own radios and missiles. It was The French supposition that they could no longer risk their domestic security to the benevolence of Allies ... twice in a quarter century, France was ravaged by wars she could neither prevent nor avoid, despite the "security" ostensibly provided by he allies. At one point, in the late 60s-early 70's, they even resisted, more or less unsuccessfully, the international convention which made English the Global Default Language for Civilian Air Traffic Control.

The reunification of Germany and the collapse of The Soviet Union posed unique challenges to The French. Both new nations possessed far greater resources and potential than did The French, and this was seen as another threat to French Autonomy and European Influence. Much effort was expended in the matter of expanding French Commercial interest in both emerging nations, hopefully thus gaining some measure of influence over the policies of the two. Results were good in this regard, and The French Economy is closely tied to that of Germany, with less but still considerable ivolvement with Russia. Thiese considerations strongly influence French Policy today.

While The oviet Union balanced the power of The US, France had a greater position of global, and European, influence than today. A "United Europe" was a French goal, ever moreso with the end of The Cold War, and France was key in the development of The EU. This was a "Hobson's Choice" for them. A unified Europe was not likely to allow France the prominence she once had enjoyed, but it would serve to limit the potential for US influence over Continental Affairs. Despite her concerns for her own sovereignty, economic reality drove French geopolitical policy. It was, and remains, The French hope that she might be the dominant polity in that United Europe. France has not fared well since the end of The Cold War, and the rise of US influence since 9/11 has further alarmed The French. They fear being rendered irrelevant. Much to their own chagrin, they see themselves forced into coalition with Germany and Russia to stem rising US influence, something they see as directly threatening French Autonomy.

From a recent Stratfor Analysis:

Iraq represents to France at least two vital National Interests:
First, there is The French Investment in Iraqi Oil, markets, and defense.
Second, France correctly perceives that US occupation of Iraq would further shift balance of the already enormous US Global Power further to US favor.

The French find themseloves caught between Iraq and a Hardcase, so to speak.



timber

If you want to know why people don't trust what the United States says about Iraq, get a load of what Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday morning.

On Oct. 7, 2001, Arab TV station Al Jazeera aired a video in which Osama Bin Laden suggested that he was fighting for Iraq and Palestine. "One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong," Bin Laden protested. "Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine … and we hear no voices raised."

When Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that month, he dismissed Bin Laden's claims. "We cannot let Usama bin Laden pretend that he is doing it in the name of helping the Iraqi people or the Palestinian people," said Powell. "He doesn't care one whit about them. He has never given a dollar toward them. He has never spoken out for them."

That was then; this is now. On February 11, 2003, Powell testified before the Senate Budget Committee. He warned that Al Jazeera would soon air a new Bin Laden statement in which "once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq. This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored."

You can write the next paragraph yourself. Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth.

Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.

The punch line? Bin Laden was talking about hypocrisy.

William Saletan in Slate

This American is proud of France's independent thinking, her willingness to stand up against something she finds to be wrong. Same goes for Belgium, Germany, Russia, and China. And my friends in the UK who have gone blairy-eyed with distress at their own government's collusion with madness. None of those nations has a perfect track record, but then again, do we? What many Americans don't seem to care about is that our current leadership is increasingly distrusted. In spite of our charm, good looks, prosperity?, cute movies and exportable cholesterol fixes, what our (former) allies are fixed on is the Bush ambition that America be the most powerful, most belligerent, most vocal and thus the most dangerous nation on the planet.

Timberlandko,

I enjoy your analysis of this and other events, However there are a few details in the above paragraph to which I must take exception --

I have read the usual histories of WWII, am knowledgable, but not an expert. I'm not aware of any French attempts to engage the U.S. in a coalition against Hitler during the years before WWII. True enough that U.S. isolationism was at a high peak and such efforts would likely have failed, but I doubt they ever occurred.

The Allies did not attack the French Fleet at Oran and casablanka - it was the UK acting alone. The U.S. was not yet involved in the war.

I'm well aware of Stalin's urgings for an early second front in France, but not at all of any from France or even de Gaule. The Vichy officials (and Generals & Admirals) were notoriously unable to get along with each other, and often far more interested in retaining whatever vestiges they could of French control & autonomy than in the effective prosecution of the war against Hitler.

If the French were concerned that too much Marshal Plan aid went to other countries they should have reflected on the relative physical damage those countries suffered during the war. France was relatively unscathed.

george, its no wonder folks have trouble untangling French Motivations ... the French can't even do it themselves

Eisenhower, in Crusade in Europe, and Churchill, in his six-volume opus on The War, both mention French irritation at Allied inaction and failure to support France in 1940 (The French saw Dunkirque as an inexcuseable abandonment, despite the nearly 30,000 French Troops that were also evacuated), and French Pique at the relatively late date of D-Day. True, it was The Brits that did the shelling of The French Fleet, but the French perceived, not without cause, that the decision to attack French Forces was influenced by The US.

An aside; broadcast news just had a soundbite regarding a significant lessening of US-French Internet Trade over the past few days. It would seem US consumers are "Voting with their dollars". I imagine more will come of this.


timber

timber

Your post displays the n american arrogance which confirms european reticence to fully engage with the US. Rumsfeld might sneeringly talk about the new Europe, meaning Estonia Czech rep, Italy Britain Spain and Slovenia, but frankly he does not know what he is talking about. It is this mixture of arrogance and ignorance on behalf of the US which explains why only 9% of Brits support the US-led pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

Steve, Your math is so-far-so-good. 91% vs 9% does equal 100. c.i.

ci 9% was a poll result pubished today by ICM. Response to the question "would you back a British and American attack on Iraq without a further UN resolution".

timber

I don't buy your reading of the French (I know this surprises both of us) nor the Germans. I see no reason to posit that their motives and rationale to be fully or even mainly pathological, which is sort of what you imply. It wasn't the view of Ron Asmus of the Council on Foreign Relations nor of Phillip Gordon of the Brookings Institute (the two chaps on Rose last evening). Both have been in Europe extensively over the last few months speaking with European leaders. Their understanding is that these leaders are responsive to their electorates (overwhelmingly opposed to the war) and that they sincerely believe that the US, on its present course, is likely to cause more grief than it will solve.

Steve,

I reread Timberlandko's posts and couldn't find any of the arrogance to which you referred. Instead I found a fairly objective analysis, and some opinion, based on historical and strategic considerations. He didn't appear to be asserting that the elements he described were necessarily the whole story on French motivations, but rather likely important parts of it.

Further, I don't see any basis for your assertion that Rumsfeld "does not know what he is talking about" in his references to the 'new Europe'. Most people had no trouble understanding what states he was referring to with that phrase, and that alone confirms its meaning. It is also a relevant, observable fact that these states of 'New Europe' are taking a different position than that of France and Germany with respect to some of the issues now before them.

Blatham,

You are putting words in Timberlandko's mouth and going well beyond what he said. He most certainly did not say or imply that French motives and reasoning are "pathological". There is little doubt the French & German leaders are, at least in major part, responding to the views of their electorates - at least as indicated by recent polls, and I suspect Timber would agree with that. I believe Timber's remarks had to do with what might be behind some of these attitudes.

tres, Still misguided. Powell's speech was all conjecture, some false, and old info. It's too bad, because Powell is going to be seen as not trustworthy with the rest of the Bush clan. c.i.

The poll re: Colin Powell's remarks and increased support for the war shows how emotion can rule over substance.
As for France, I do not really care at this point why they are resisting the Bush push to war. I just hope they do not bend or break.