Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - international congress on iraq? chirac's modest proposal

host · 01-08-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Why now?
Why is chirac expressing his "deep concern" for Iraq and calling for international conferences NOW?
Shouldn't this have been done years earlier before Iraq got this bad?
Wouldn't it have been cool to see france emerge as a progressive, visionary leading voice for Iraq 4 years ago?..........

powerclown, in the "rest" of the world, including in mine....."france [did] emerge as a progressive, visionary leading voice for Iraq 4 years ago?" The near term historical record is that Mr. Bush ordered aggressive war against Iraq in 2003. Mr. Villepin, prime minister of France, will be described in the majority of history books, still to be written, this way:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_de_Villepin
.....He was appointed Foreign Minister by Chirac in the cabinet of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin at the beginning of his second term in 2002.

During the crisis in Haiti, Villepin once again showed himself to be a resolute decision-maker, obtaining the backing of the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his bid to solve the crisis by ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power.

Villepin's most famous assignment as Chirac's Foreign Minister was opposing the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, making France look like the leader in a coalition of countries such as Germany, Belgium, Russia and China that opposed the invasion. The speech he gave to the United Nations to block a second resolution allowing the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime is regarded by some as an historic moment, receiving loud applause.......

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...nce/index.html
France 'cannot accept ultimatum'

Monday, March 17, 2003 Posted: 4:41 AM EST (0941 GMT)

Villepin:
Villepin: "War is not necessary, we can do otherwise."

PARIS, France (CNN) -- France cannot accept a U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum calling for the automatic use of force to disarm Iraq, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says.

Reacting to the "coalition of the willing" summit in the Azores, Villepin said Monday the leaders of the United States, Great Britain and Spain "must ask themselves if war is really necessary."

Villepin reiterated France's position that it is still possible to disarm Iraq peacefully, noting that U.N. weapon inspections are working.

Following the Azores summit, U.S. President George W. Bush said the U.S. and its allies would make its final effort Monday to extract a resolution from the U.N. Security Council giving Iraq an ultimatum to disarm immediately or be disarmed by force.

Bush called the day "a moment of truth for the world."

But despite severe criticism from the United States, France is sticking with its demand that U.N. arms inspectors be given more time.

"France cannot accept the resolution that is on the table in New York ... which poses an ultimatum and which envisages an automatic use of force," Villepin told Europe 1 radio.

"France has said what it would do [if such a U.N. resolution was proposed]," he said, a reference to President Jacques Chirac's threat to use France's right of veto in the U.N. Security Council.

Chirac proposed setting a 30-day deadline for Iraq to meet a series of disarmament criteria and also defended his country's stance in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. (Staunch voice)
Relations 'undamaged'

The current crisis is with Iraq and not between France and the U.S. or Britain, the French foreign minister stressed.

The United States was a "precious ally" and tensions over Iraq would not damage U.S.-French relations, he said.

But he warned "one country can win a war but it takes more than one country to win peace."

Villepin also said there was no evidence of a link between Iraq and the al Qaeda terror network.

France has called for an emergency U.N. ministerial meeting Tuesday to set a timetable for Iraq's peaceful disarmament.

The call ignores a Monday deadline set by the U.S. and three allies for the U.N. to authorize war against Baghdad.

Quote:

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/st...epin021403.asp
Iraq / Address by Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations Security Council

New-York, February 14, 2003

Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Ministers,
Ambassadors,

I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.

You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:

We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.

In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.

The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?

In response to this question, France has two convictions:

# The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
# The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.

In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:

# In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;
# In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;
# In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.

There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.

We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.

Real progress is beginning to be apparent:

# Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
# It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;
# A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;
# Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.

France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.

Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.

To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
# I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
# Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.

What is the spirit of these proposals?

# They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.
# They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution. <
# They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei: The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
# In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.

Now, yes, I do hear the critics:

# There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
# There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.

There are two options:

# The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
# Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?

No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?

So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.

Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.

There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:

# The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.

# Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

# We all share the same priority�that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.

<h3>Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan.</h3> Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:

To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?

How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?

In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.

Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.

Thank you.

Embassy of France in the United States - February 14, 2003

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, will be described in history books as an instigator of aggressive war, on a series of false pretenses, at best, and at worst, as a liar and as a war criminal. In the highlighted area in the preceding quotes of Villepin's much admired , Feb. 2003 speech before the UN, it can be accurately said that he diplomatically called Colin Powell's UN presentation concerning the "evidence" of the serious threat to the world that justified war against Iraq, unverifiable.

I have post much support since, and much has been reported elsewhere, for the possibility that Villepin was correct in questioning Powell's evidence.

The US leadership ignored the pleas for "more time" from the UN security council members, sans Britain. The invasion of Iraq has turned into a diplomatic, military, and fiscal disaster for the US, and it potentially guaranteed Iran's dominance in the region.

Given how this has progressed, and considering your opinion of the French leadership, and the resolute attitude of the Bush admin., why would you expect that France would show the slightest inclination to involve itself, any earlier, in the US/Iraq mess? Why do you think that France has any obligation to ever get involved? Powell's "Pottery Barn" analogy still sums things up, powerclown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

One has to wonder how well the Biden plan would be received, in light of how poorly the ISG's report was received.
Maybe someone else has a plan.
Having no idea what would be on the agenda for such a conference, its all speculation at this point.
Comprehensively securing baghdad could signal the start of something productive, some sort of foothold.
Furthermore, there are new players, the Rumsfeld Doctrine has been ditched, things might start to happen.

powerclown, the passage of time has resulted in the incurious Mr. Bush's "flip flops", turning him into a pathetic caricature of a "leader", don't you see that, yet?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120601903.html
In Theater of War, It's Iraq Study Group's Turn to Take the Stage

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, December 7, 2006; Page A02

Minutes after the Iraq Study Group placed an improvised explosive device beneath the Bush administration's Iraq policy yesterday, panel member Lawrence Eagleburger was asked how President Bush reacted to the recommendations.

"His reaction was, 'Where's my drink?' " the former secretary of state cracked after the commission's White House visit and Capitol Hill news conference.......

....Baker bristled when reporters questioned the study group's credibility. When ABC News's Jonathan Karl, pointing out that only one of the 10 panelists ever left the Green Zone in Iraq, asked why their views should carry weight, Baker looked down the row of commissioners with a smile and a wink. He took out some lip balm and applied it, then smiled some more. "This report by this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there," he finally shot back.

Whatever else the "has-beens" accomplished, they made sure that any credibility questions will be directed not at them but at Bush. Hamilton lectured: "You cannot look at this area of the world and pick and choose among the countries that you're going to deal with." Leon Panetta counseled Bush to "look at the realities of what's taking place." Eagleburger said after the event that when the group met with Bush, "I don't recall, seriously, that he asked any questions." Even the loyal Baker had to advise his friend's son that "it is time to find a new way forward."

At least he didn't say Bush has B.O.

Press Conference by the President
But in order to do so, there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops. And that's precisely what our commanders have said, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061220-1.html - 68k - Cached - Similar pages

President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror
If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050628-7.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq Participate in ...
And, obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and, therefore, there needs to be more troops. In other words, the commanders said, what more can ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060725.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom
General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040524-10.html - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

President Tours Border, Discusses Immigration Reform in Texas
And I will make decisions based upon -- the level of troops based upon the recommendations by the commanders on the ground. If they tell me we need more ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051129-2.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/08/bush-more-troops/
VIDEO FLASHBACK: Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy’

On Wednesday night, President Bush is expected to announce plans to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops. On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead” and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.” Watch it:

Bush prefaced his comments by saying that, “If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.” Last month, Gen. Abizaid revealed that he asked all the commanders on the ground and none of them wanted more troops. Shortly thereafter, Abizaid was replaced.