John Re...Someone sent me this. I thought it was interesting... from before the war started. The threat was so immediate we couldn't afford 30 days for NATO/UN support.
Interesting. Lets compare his statements to findings, since the war.
"We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war..."
Really, because, being a nag, or shall I say in opposition to US policy is the contention of Villepins new book. Some excerpts.
townhall.com
"We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war..."
He presents France as [and] the US as the only two modern civilisations with "universal aspirations", a claim that other pretenders are likely to dispute. France and the US are thus cast in the roles of rivals in "cultural and moral domains."
"Two visions of the world confront one another," he writes. "Do not make any mistake: the choice is between two visions of the world."
At no point, however, does Villepin take the trouble to tell us what these two rival visions are. The reason is that he does not have a clue. He applies what is a religious dialectics to politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Villipin says. "Do not make any mistake: the choice is between two visions of the world.", that is exactly what France is doing; offering another vision competing with Americas vision no matter what, much as the Dems always offer a competing vision to the Reps. In this paragraph there is a better description. The third, and fundamental, problem is that Villepin assumes that the modern world faces a choice of two opposed visions: one represented by the United States, the other by France. Villepin and France always will have opposing positions, because that is what France feels their main role in the world is, to replace Russia, as the main counterpoint to US policy.
CHIRAC ...But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until we’ve come [to] a dead end, but that isn’t the case.
Really. Then why hasn't France followed its own stated policy. France is more interventionist than the US.
From the Villepin article.
As for the use of force, France, a medium-size power, has been as active, if not more, in that domain as the US. There is a French military presence in 22 countries on four continents. Right now France is intervening in wars in Ivory Coast and the Congo (former Zaire).
Chirac and Villepin only say that because it goes against America's vision at that point. It is not that France really believes that gobblydook, or perhap you can show me the UN resolutions, asking France to intervene in Bosnia, The Ivory Coast and the Congo.
AMANPOUR: The fact is, Mr. President, that in America many people think it’s just because you are a friend, a pal of Saddam Hussein. That you have had long contacts with him, that you helped build the nuclear reactor there, that there are the oil deals. You invited Saddam Hussein to France. There is a famous picture of you toasting him. They think it is about a personal and a business relationship
PRESIDENT CHIRAC: That is a myth.
Really
story.news.yahoo.com
Longtime rumors that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) bribed key foreign dignitaries - including top French officials - have apparently been confirmed by documents found in Iraq (news - web sites).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you again about the nuclear reactor at Ossirac? You know, a lot of people called it "Os-Chirac", as you know. In retrospect, do you regret that it was destroyed, given that it could have been used to form nuclear weapons?
PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, this reactor was civilian reactor. But in those days, all of the major democracies, all of them, each and every one of them, had contacts and trade and exchanges with Iraq, including on weapons. Even weapons of mass destruction sometimes, including bacteriological, biological weapons
True to a point. However France is the only country, in the world to sell that plant without IAEA protections built in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1990/900330.htm
STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR COOPERATION
There is little doubt that the international nuclear regime is now facing a crisis that no nation can afford to ignore. Under existing standards, all non-nuclear-weapon-states that are party to the NPT must have safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] over all of their nuclear facilities. These controls reassure both the nuclear nations and their buyers' neighbors that nuclear technology will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. When nuclear cooperation takes place under these controls, all members of international society--not just those involved in specific deals--stand to benefit from the increased security produced by those controls.
Under current French policy, however, nuclear business can evidently continue as usual even if its partner is a nonsignatory of the NPT, even if the partner is operating an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment plant, even if it is building an unsafeguarded nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, even if it is secretly buying up parts for an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor, even if it is conducting explosive tests of various components of nuclear devices, even if it cannot keep its most solemn nuclear assurances, and even if it is continuing to violate national and international nuclear export controls.
The same policy evidently now applies with respect to the nuclear cooperation standards of the Soviet Union and, of course, China. All three nations have simply brushed aside international criticism of such nuclear supply practices. Purely a domestic affair,' we are told. `Cooperation will only produce further restraint,' they add.
Yet if France is so convinced that Pakistan is committed to its peaceful international nuclear commitments, why then does France not go all the way and sell Pakistan its long-sought nuclear fuel reprocessing plant as well? This is the process of making the fissile material that goes into nuclear weapons. France's evident decision not to supply such a plant raises several interesting questions: Does France not have full confidence in the ability of the IAEA to safeguard a commercial sized nuclear reprocessing plant and the plutonium it produces? Or, does France still harbor some doubts about Pakistan's ability or willingness to live up to its peaceful nuclear commitments? If the later is true, then France's case for selling a reactor is only further eroded.
As France continues to pursue such a policy, pressures will grow among other nuclear supplier nations to follow suit. Since there are many export-hungry nuclear firms in other nations, France's deal could well lead to a global free-for-all in nuclear technology and a further threat to world peace. Is this what we can now expect from the new Europe? Will Pakistan, India, and other nations interested in acquiring nuclear explosives now provide the markets needed to rescue Europe's nuclear industry from the doldrums it is now facing?
History will be the ultimate judge of France's current and past nuclear policies, just as history will judge our own policies. History will judge whether the following activities have truly served the cause of global peace:
Did the French sale of a reactor and highly enriched uranium to Iraq, a nation committed to the total destruction of its neighbor, Israel, and continued talks with the Iraqi Government on supplying a new reactor to replace the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981, serve the cause of global peace?
Did it serve the cause of global peace for France to transfer technical data for a large nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Pakistan, a deal that was ultimately terminated in 1977, as a direct result of strong United States opposition?
Or to assist India in building an unsafeguarded breeder reactor to produce large quantities of nuclear materials that could be used in nuclear weapons?
Or to supply to Israel with an unsafeguarded reactor for plutonium production and an unsafeguarded reprocessing plant at the Dimona site for plutonium separation?
Or to supply two large power reactors to South Africa and nuclear fuel services to keep them running?
Or to supply ballistic missile technology to India, Pakistan, and Israel?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When you compare Chrac's statements then, with Villepins new book, you realize the duplicity in Chiracs statements. France thinks it is the leader of the opposing view to Us views,(For instance, if the US says, don't sell nuclear facilities without IAEA protections, France immediately does the opposite, to show France's independence); which will always put France against US policy, no matter the policy. It is time to recognize France for what it has become. A self proclaimed leader of the opposition to US policy, using the UN to achieve its purposes. Villepin not only recognizes it, he boasts of it. |
