0
   

The "French Connection"

 
 
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:05 pm
Quote:


Link to "The French Connection"

Very interesting. Does this information put a different light on things? What do YOU make of this information?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,208 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:15 pm
OK. It appears that not only wars have economic background, but "pacifism" is fueled by these too... And after all this French media are arrogant enough to accuse Mr. Bush in starting war in order to promote U.S. petrochemical companies interests...
Now I understand what kind of dove is Mr. Chirac: he is a jet propulsion one.
0 Replies
 
Dreamweaver MX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:22 pm
If Safire were right, now that "the truth is out" those countries will support the war. But as usual he is not right and that old news is not the reason for the lack of support for America's war.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:26 pm
If Mr. Safire is wrong, the French, Syrian and Chinese governments may sue him for libel. I have not yet heard about any lawsuits against him.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:32 pm
I am just going to sit and watch how this all plays out. I find it very interesting..................
0 Replies
 
Dreamweaver MX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:39 pm
There will be no lawsuit. Safire is just speculating about the reasons for the lack of support. Since he is a hawk he likes to paint the picture this way. He can't be sued for speculating about French motives even if he is wrong about them.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:41 pm
Well, but he accuses France and China in breaching the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. This is beyond any speculations.
0 Replies
 
Dreamweaver MX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 06:45 pm
What constitutes a breach differs very much in different minds. And we both know that a breach of UN sanctions is no big deal unless the USA takes issue with it. An example of that is how when Isreal violates UN resolutions nothing happens, but when an Arab country does.....
0 Replies
 
nelsonn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 09:28 pm
French, German, and Russian companies have been conducting very profitable business with Iraq, even though it meant violating the sanctions that were supposed to be enforced from 1991. Isn't it obvious that they don't want to stop?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 10:20 pm
Mr Safire's claim to intellectual discourse hails from his days as speech writer for Sprio Agnew where he coined such terms as "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "an effete corps of impudent snobs" to reference the press corps questioning of Viet Nam policy. Not much has changed as far as i can tell.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Mar, 2003 11:02 pm
William Safire is a man of strong convictions, a loyal and staunch defender of and PR man for Nixon. I have read that the U.S. was also supplying Hussein with weapons and information, and that members of the Bush administration were actively engaged in dealing with Iraq. As a matter of fact, one of the mottos for this administration seems to be "Business is business, Charlie."

So I don't find it so strange that other countries still do business with Iraq. Nor is it inconsistent with their policies that they should disagree with us. This week it's Bash the French. A bas les french fries - up with freedom fries.

The thing is, nothing in his article is new. It's all been out there, in detail. Some months ago the NY Times ran an article about the Chinese, in particular, doing business with Iraq. And about the French. Maybe it's time to find out why so many - including the French - do disagree with us.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 12:45 am
I agree that some states still have business with Iraq. And besides France, Germany is one of the giggest economic partner.

However, if these trades harm the UN resolution (and get noticed), these firms/individuals of these firms are prosecuted and sentenced by courts.
I admit, some are in prison by now due to this.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 02:34 am
I stated it before. Every coutry has done business with Iraq. Including the US and the UK. Last week The Guardian reported of a chemical plant built by the British, without the US even knowing. There are pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and laughing.

Photos:Donald Rumsfeld sold weapons of mass destruction to IRAQ!

Most of the documents dealing with Iraq's purchases for its weapons programs prior to the 1991 war were taken by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) that was doing the inspecting until 1998. The documents are thus United Nations documents, yet they have been impounded by the United States, which is why no one has acces to them. It is interesting to note that the United States Department of Commerce was issuing export licences for biological weapons elements right up until the fifteenth of January, 1991, the day the Gulf War finally started, five and a half months after the invasion of Kuweit.

When James Bolton, United States Undersecretary of State for Disarmament was asked about this at a press conference at the bioweapons convention conference in Geneva in November 2001 (the conference at which the United States sabotaged the enforcement protocol to the convention, thus triggering a bio-weapons arms race, which most people aren't even aware of), he refused to answer.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Mar, 2003 11:45 pm
Frolic - that's interesting, about the photos. Do you know when they were impounded?

I ask because so much of the paperwork and doings of this administration have been shrouded in secrecy. Bush had ordered that the presidential papers of both Reagan and Bush senior not be opened. I think he applied this also to Clinton's, but Clinton applied for his own papers. And Cheney refusing to hand over the papers on the energy committee meetings. And the refusal to turn over any written records of Estrada. And now, so much of what they've given out turning out to be half-truths at best. The Niger info that proved to be fake; the "proof" Powell presented to the U.N. that proved to have been cribbed and cobbled together, that Powell beforehand but went ahead and presented anyway.

Safire begins to look like a blabbermouth.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 01:13 am
mamajuana

Those photos were taken from a political tv program, broadcasted (I think so) on February 23, 2003 by the Nederland 1 /IKON , called Factor. (My Dutch isn't that good, so perhaps wait until Frolic can provide some better explanations. IKON is a inter-church broadcast, I think.) The link for the video is
http://213.132.199.172/ikonSite/factor/real.asp
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 02:26 am
Everyone sold weapons of mass destruction to the Hussain regime! Everyone! And if they didn't do it legit, the did it covertly - the man has billions of dollars to spend. Chirac used to be called 'Mr Iraq', it was his JOB to get contracts.

Lawdy, there was even a wonderful moment when the US was openly supplying Iraq with armaments and intelligence in their war with Iran, and ALSO covertly selling the Iranians weapons to against the Iraqis! Nice little earner if you can get away with it.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 05:06 am
HOw much military action will be taken against France, China and Syria?
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 05:47 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mamajuana

Those photos were taken from a political tv program, broadcasted (I think so) on February 23, 2003 by the Nederland 1 /IKON , called Factor. (My Dutch isn't that good, so perhaps wait until Frolic can provide some better explanations. IKON is a inter-church broadcast, I think.) The link for the video is
http://213.132.199.172/ikonSite/factor/real.asp


You're right about IKON and the program. But those photo's are spread all over the internet. Its just "par hazard" that i linked to that site.

here is another one.

Rumsfeld & Saddam
and another one

R&S

http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/b/bd/Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 08:05 am
Thanks, frolic, I'm glad that my Dutch really is a tiny bit better than "Ik begrijp het niet. Spreekt u Duits?" :wink:

I do think, most photos are taken from that quoted video.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2003 08:23 pm
from Stratfor, about A month ago:


Quote:
The Chirac-Hussein Connection
Feb 18, 2003

Summary

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France's behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq's purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, "Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors." France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein's visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq's nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac's attempt to return to the premiership, the French official "has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq." In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was "truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974." Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don't linger the way Chirac did.

Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac's run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac's full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac's willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as "Shah-Iraq" and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as "O-Chirac."

Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality.

Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal "came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic." Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn't know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli.

There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d'Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq's legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called "caramel," was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined.

By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, "It wasn't me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d'Estaing." He went on to say, "I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late."

Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry - who at that time was Michel d'Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d'Ornano claimed that he didn't even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac.

In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors - which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, "Le Canard Enchaine" published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir -- which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement "on the negotiation which you know about," and it speaks of the "cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country." In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as "my dear friend."

Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to "an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future." Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a "ridiculous invention." Assuming Chirac's sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the "essential chapter" refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like "negotiation which you know about."

Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq's nuclear capability, or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens.

It is unfair to tag Chirac with the rumors that have trailed him in his relations with Hussein. It is fair to say, however, that Chirac has created a circumstance for breeding rumors. The issues raised here were all well known at one time and place. When they are laid end-to-end, a mystery arises. What affair was being discussed in the letter delivered by Michel Noir? If not nuclear reactors, then what was referenced but never mentioned specifically in Chirac's letter to his "dear friend" Hussein?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that simply may signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leader's behavior.




timber
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The "French Connection"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 03:36:20