SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (7287)7/28/2003 7:05:15 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 8683
 
France refuses role without U.N. control

By Jennifer Joan Lee
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

PARIS — Risking another showdown with the United States, France is standing firm on its insistence that the United Nations take control in Iraq before it will consider sending troops to help embattled American soldiers.
France remains adamant that the international body must have absolute and complete control over Iraq's political, economic and civilian reconstruction.
"What would ultimately determine whether the French will support sending peacekeepers to Iraq is going to be the answer to the question: Who would be politically in charge?" said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, an independent think tank.
"Is it going to be [senior U.S. administrator L] Paul Bremer or [U.N. Special Representative in Iraq] Sergio Vieira de Mello? The French would like Vieira de Mello to take charge of the political transition. That's where the dividing line lies."
"The prevailing feeling in Washington is that France would ultimately send troops, come what may," said Guillaume Parmentier, a government adviser and director of the French Center on the U.S. at the French Institute of International Relations or IFRI.
"That's ridiculous. If people think France is going to join an occupation force with a fig leaf, they're in cuckoo land. It will never happen."
With American soldiers coming under daily attack in Iraq, Bush administration officials who once seemed eager to manage Iraq on their own are now speaking openly of the need for assistance from Russia, Germany and even France. Countries like Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Lithuania have already pledged a limited number of peacekeeping troops.
While France has repeatedly expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, it has refused to help out without approval by the U.N. Security Council, a stance backed by Germany, Russia and India.
And despite President Bush's international appeal last week for financial and military assistance, French government officials, so far, are not budging:
"We have always explained to our American friends the conditions that for us are indispensable — there must be principles. Above all, that the United Nations take clear and whole responsibility," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on local radio last week.
"To go and add other forces today without improving the framework, without legitimately reinforcing the action, is to risk seeing the actual situation perpetuate itself."
Mr. de Villepin also said the recent killings of Saddam Hussein's two sons could spark revenge attacks, further justifying the need for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties.
"One can also imagine resistance to the coalition forces intensifying. That's why for France the key is to press ahead with the political process," he said.
That does not necessarily mean France will initiate a Security Council resolution that would authorize the deployment of international troops — a step that the United States is itself considering.
"I think France probably wants to keep a low profile," said Philippe Moreau Defarges, one of IFRI's international relations experts. "The high profile it received in the beginning of the crisis was already much criticized. For it to introduce a resolution would be to return to a high-profile role."
Most people in France support President Jacques Chirac's refusal to deploy troops without a new U.N. mandate, just as they backed his opposition to the war itself. According to Stephane Rozes, head of CSA-TMO, a local polling firm, recent events have had little effect on Mr. Chirac's popularity.
"He experienced a dip during the height of France's conflict with the U.S. before the war. But the ratings have since gone back up and have not been affected by what's going on. In fact, I would say that for most ordinary people in France, Iraq is not even on the radar screen."
Indeed, for many in France, the war in Iraq was not theirs, so neither should the aftermath be their responsibility. "The prevailing feeling is indifference," Mr. Moreau Defarge said.
Despite the much-publicized rift in U.S.-French relations, few French would admit to any ill will toward Americans today.
"Most of us feel sad for the U.S. soldiers who are in Iraq," said Mariline Compain-Tissier, a 48-year old financier. "It is a tragedy they are being killed. We do not blame Americans for what is going on in Iraq. We blame George Bush."
Indeed, pro-American sentiment was very much alive yesterday in Paris, where tens of thousands of French cheered as American cyclist Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France.
In other parts of the country, support for the United States has never wavered. On the northern coast of Normandy, where American forces landed to fight Hitler 60 years ago, most people believe France should be doing more for its longtime ally.
"Some people are saying, 'We never imagined a day when we would say no to America," said Magali Glon, a 27-year-old tour guide in Val-sur-Mer, a half-hour drive from Omaha Beach.
"The U.S. helped us, and we feel we should now help the U.S. But at the same time, we also feel that it was a decision that was made for us. We'd like to help, but not with these politics."



To: calgal who wrote (7287)7/28/2003 7:10:14 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 8683
 
Killing the goose

By Mona Charen

When it comes to foreign policy, I sleep better at night knowing that Republicans control the White House and Congress. But on health care, it has lately become difficult to imagine how things could be much worse with the Democrats in charge. When the Clinton administration attempted to move us down the road toward socialized medicine, Republicans responded that the answer to health-care problems was more choice and more market incentives, not state control. Democrats have never learned this lesson, and it appears that Republicans have now forgotten it. Take the prescription drug benefit bills that recently passed the House and Senate. Reasonable people might be moved to pass a bill granting special drug benefits to the elderly poor or to those experiencing particularly crushing medical expenses. But that's not the way the politicians like to do things. Instead, all seniors — rich and poor — will be eligible for this subsidy. The cost? A recent estimate put the price to taxpayers at $400 billion per year. But don't forget, when Medicare was introduced in 1965, it was estimated to cost $8.8 billion by 1990. The true cost was about $66 billion. Well, the elderly are the poorest segment of society and thus require more subsidies from the rest of us, right? No. The Census Bureau reports that poverty among the elderly was 10.2 percent in 2000, whereas the child-poverty rate hovered around 16.2 percent. Besides, some 76 percent of the elderly already have prescription drug coverage through private plans, Medicaid or pensions. Of the 24 percent who lack coverage, some are not sick. But they'll surely get Viagra and more if they're subsidized. In addition, the presence of a government entitlement will cause those employers who do provide a drug benefit to their senior employees to drop it, thus increasing the pool of those dependent on the state. Why not target assistance only to those who need it? As Deroy Murdoch suggests in National Review magazine, a conservative approach to the drug-benefit issue would permit those who like Medicare to keep it. The elderly poor would receive subsidies to purchase private health coverage that included prescription drugs. As incomes rose, the subsidies would fall. Instead, Congress proposes to tax all of us, including strapped families with young children, to pay for Lipitor for Ted Turner — now and forever, entitlements without end, amen. Another gem the Republicans are not opposing — in fact, many are supporting — is the drug-reimportation proposal. This is the brainchild of some congressmen who looked at lower drug prices in Canada and elsewhere, and declared, "Hey, no fair." If this bill becomes law, Americans will be able to import American-made drugs from Canada and other nations, and thus enjoy lower prices. But there's a worm in this beautiful apple. Canada and Europe enjoy low drug prices because their governments put price caps on drugs. Those consumers are, as the American Enterprise Institute's John Calfee explains in the Weekly Standard, free riders on our system. The United States is the only market in which drug manufacturers make a profit. That's why European pharmaceutical companies are flocking to the United States. In 2000, U.S.-based companies spent 24 billion euros on research and development, compared with 17 billion euros for European firms. (Europe has a larger population and greater total wealth than the United States.) Fifteen of the top 20 best-selling drugs worldwide are made in the United States. It costs money, lots of it, to create new medicines. Of every 10,000 substances considered as new drugs, only 250 make it to animal testing. Only five are tested on humans. And only one gets FDA approval. People gripe about the cost of drugs, but the medical costs they save are hardly taken into account. A family member had a stomach ulcer a number of years ago. Before the drug Prilosec was available, people lost countless days of work, had costly and painful surgeries, and even died from stomach ulcers. Now, they take a pill for a few weeks, and that's it. Cured. That's one example among millions. It is estimated that half of the extension in life expectancy experienced between 1971 and 1991 stemmed from new drugs. Reimportation would result in one of two unintended outcomes: Either prices would not drop because drug companies would decline to ship huge quantities of drugs to places like Canada or, worse, prices would drop and companies would stop research and development. Time was, Republicans understood these things. Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.



To: calgal who wrote (7287)7/28/2003 7:22:04 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
jewishworldreview.com