I think it could be interpreted that way, but that the case is shakier.
I think it would be difficult to do so.. The difference is that Francois Mitterand was in charge then, not Jacques Chirac. Mitterand ALSO attempted to offer a political solution to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, not being keen on using force on France's best customer having sold Iraq Billions in weapons between 1980-88(and don't forget those lucrative oil deals). Mitterand was hesitant about going to war with Iraq, having invested so much in Saddam.. But he also knew that France could not realistically oppose the use of force to repel blatant aggression.. But he could place limits (such as not going to Baghdad).
But Chirac, given HIS MUCH CLOSER TIES TO SADDAM, was absolutely dead set against following through on re-initiating hostilities with Iraq to force in order to restore peace and international stability, as UNSC 660 demanded. Remember, it was Chirac that sold Iraq those nuclear reactors, personally giving Saddam a tour of the facility where they were built.
It was Chirac who was known as "Jacques Iraq" by his compatriots.
It was Chirac who had been willing to declare Iraq in full compliance with UNSCOM inspections, and only backing down because of the uproar it created amongst those inspectors (and the US).
Chirac had FAR MORE at stake than did Mitterand. And it's no where sure that Chirac wouldn't have limited any original US action to strictly permitting US forces to operate in Kuwait, forbidding the to cross the Iraqi border. That would have been a FAR different war, had that occurred.
Bottom line.. Chirac, nor Russia, were ever going to outright support the overthrow of one of their biggest debtor governments. Not without guarantees, they weren't. And those guarantees of loan repayments would have fallen upon the backs of the current Iraqi government, similar to the reparations that turned Wiemar Germany into Nazi Germany..
Hawk |
