Bush has had his op to present a smoking gun. He hasn't because there is none. Forcing Powell to dissemble for him has destroyed Powell's rep as a man of integrity IMO
Why Chirac risks all in his rush to thwart Bush
From Charles Bremner in Paris
timesonline.co.uk
AN ADMIRING nation is cheering President Chirac as he leads France in a war of nerves with Washington, but his stand against an immediate Iraqi offensive is a gamble that could ultimately cost him dear.
With yesterday’s veto in Nato and his efforts at the United Nations to thwart President Bush, MChirac has set France on course for its biggest clash with the US since Charles de Gaulle withdrew from the Nato military structure in 1966.
His supporters see the 70-year-old President as coming into his own as a statesman in the footsteps of le grand Charles. However, some critics think that he is acting true to long-standing form, rushing into action without a planned exit. “It’s going to end in tears,” a conservative-minded Paris lawyer remarked. “It always does with Chirac.”
M Chirac’s ultimate strategy remains a mystery. Insiders believe that he has yet to decide how far to take the conflict with the US and that he is improvising. In heady times for France’s sense of special destiny, MChirac is basking in his role as champion of the “axis of peace”, as some have dubbed the would-be Paris-Berlin-Moscow partnership for staving off war.
By playing to the hilt the spoiling role pioneered by de Gaulle, and followed more mildly by the late François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1995, M Chirac is clearly aiming for a slot in history as a respected world leader. This would bring the redemption that has been his goal since his re-election last May after a troubled seven-year first term in which he was forced to share power with a Socialist Government.
More than 80 per cent of the public backs the President’s Iraq policy and the Socialist Opposition has failed to fault his stand. From radio phone-ins to Paris dinner tables and cafés, the message is usually a variant of the argument that “Chirac is right to restrain the cowboy Bush from inflicting his oil war on the world”.
There is also satisfaction over the evidence from opinion polls that France is speaking for the wider European public, including that of Britain, which is run by “Bush’s poodle”. In the political world, only one prominent figure is challenging the consensus. Alain Madelin, who ran last May for the presidency on a pro-business platform, has been branded as a stooge for urging a pro-US policy. There are dissenting voices, mainly from the business world, where there is concern over the consequences of the Franco-American spat. Hoteliers on the Côte d’Azur are bracing for a collapse in their American custom.
M Chirac’s chief handicap is precisely the enthusiasm that he has whipped up for his anti-American line. The more that he plays to the gallery and raises the stakes with Washington, the harder it will be for him to backtrack, let alone perform the pirouette that would be required to send French forces into action along with “les anglo-americains”. By cultivating ambiguity, M Chirac has encouraged the belief that France could veto a new war resolution at the UN Security Council. He has done this while shifting his stance. In early January he appeared to be preparing opinion for possible war. After an outcry he swung behind the all-out pacifist line of Gerhard Schröder. Last week, meeting Tony Blair, he moved back, saying that he did not rule out a UN-endorsed war as a last resort.
Last weekend, Paris was back on the confrontation track with the outline of a Franco-German plan for saturating Iraq with inspectors. The messy way in which Berlin leaked the scheme was deplored in Paris yesterday.
M Chirac’s margin for manoeuvre is narrowing. The Opposition, out to trap the President, are calling for a UN veto despite the damage that this would inflict on the UN and the leverage that France enjoys through its permanent Security Council seat.
Pierre Moscovici, the Europe Minister in the last Socialist Government, said: “We have to take the risk of causing displeasure. Chirac must resist right to the end and use his veto if needed. Public opinion would not understand if he reversed course.”
Until lately, the Paris Establishment largely subscribed to the US view that France would fall in behind the Americans, taking part in an Iraq war in some manner. The alternative would mean a US-led war outside the UN, an EU crisis, the exclusion of France from postwar Iraq and long-term damage with Washington.
Some are arguing now that France could gain from resisting Washington to the end. This theory is based on an analogy with Vietnam. It supposes that the US and its allies will become bogged down in an internationally unpopular Iraqi conflict, fomenting instability in the Middle East. This would greatly play to the advantage of an independent-minded France.
While waiting for the end-game, foreign embassies in Paris are tending towards the view that, in the end, M Chirac will hedge his bets. He will avoid the isolation of France by associating it to a degree with an eventual US-led offensive in Iraq. At the same time, barring strong new evidence of Iraqi delinquency, he would also strive to keep a critical distance from Washington. |
