After the talk SoCaliente and I had, I thought of following her idea and start a thread about the French policy regarding Iraq and the Middle East. This is also to take notice of Jaime's remarks (I don't want to be off topic).

I looked for President Chirac's interview in the New York Times : L'interview au New York Times (it's in English, don't worry readers!)

It's quite long unfortunately, so I hope that you'll have the patience to read through it. The views he's developing are quite new and are apeasing the fire of the debate somehow.

So, here are my questions :

1. Do you trust Chirac's intentions?
2. Are his views and plans realistic?
3. How do you see the realization of a peaceful Iraq after this interview?
4. Any signs of warming between Washington and Paris in months to come?

I'm sorry but the news today is making me angry. They are in complete spin mode. They are blaming the failure they know is coming tomorrow on Ted Kennedy and France. But mostly France. O'reilley couldn't quite pull it off and he was about as shrill as I've ever seen him. Bush is having a bad week already. He's behind Clark in the latest poll (which is extraordinary really) , he's getting attacked in the print media, people are asking questions and connecting dot's...his $87b is in 'negotiations' and there are questions which they can't stand to have to answer. They give is little as possible and spin it. Except Bremer has been better than the others.

Personally, I think this UN push was supposed to be a cover while his money was going through, to look like he was in the middle of getting something done and help might be on the way. But at the moment bad press is not welcome. Maybe that's why they are working so hard to pin blame everywhere else.

I think he's taking a pretty big risk. No one liked his last 'tough guy' speech demanding $87b and some more of our civil liberties. No accountability, no apology, no explanations. His poll numbers have been slipping since.

I love how he treats the constitution that is the key to the freedom he is supposed to be there fighting for as an afterthought. Like he views the constitution as irrelevant as he does the UN so they can have each other. If I were on the Council I wouldn't be felling very diplomatic...I'd probably get up there and put him in his place and tell him what someone needs to so he snaps out of this 'Dictator' persona. Iraq must have gone to his head.
So Listen up George....YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT BELIEVES THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. EVERY ALLEGATION YOU MADE TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ WAS DEAD WRONG. EVERY DECISION YOU'VE MADE SINCE THE DAY YOU DECLARED COMBAT OPERATIONS OVER HAS FAILED. NO ONE IS GOING TO COME INTO IRAQ SO YOU CAN TELL THEM HOW TO KEEP SCREWING IT ALL UP. NO ONE IS GOING TO COME IN AND PICK UP THE PIECES FOR YOU WHILE YOU KICK THEM IN THE TEETH. YOUR IDIOTIC THREATS AND DEMANDS WEREN'T WORKING BEFORE THE WAR AND THEY'RE EVEN MORE PATHETIC NOW. PERHAPS YOU'RE CONFUSED ABOUT WHO WAS RIGHT AND WHO WAS WRONG. JUST SHUT UP AND GO HOME UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO NEGOTIATE AND COMPROMISE LIKE A BIG BOY. IN THE MEAN TIME IRAQ IS ALL YOURS...ENJOY.

Regarding the questions...France has been steady and willing to try to negotiate and ran into people who wouldn't. It's not the fault of the French...Bush is still listening to the neocons who would rather die than bring in the UN. I think France has been very mature, and handled the abuse they've received from the US with dignity. Hopefully they know the rift will probably be around until Bush isn't. After that the US will start making ammends.

btw, why is it the news only talks about the failure they are sure the French proposal will bring...it never occurs to them that Bush may not even have a plan...it's already happened once. How about we talk about his plan on the news for awhile? I rest my case. I agree with France to put a tentative goal at 9 months. Flexibility is fine but people need some results...no one wants to her it could be a year or more. The US isn't feeling like staying as long as Bush is...not now that they know they were lied to. Or that Iraq is being better funded than we are ...and we get to pay for it.

Moderation note: I would ask that we all avoid commenting on Danya's Bush-rant (first four paragraphs) since it is off topic. I don't want to have to close this thread so early. I know some of us were quite interested in debating ideas regarding FRANCE and Iraq, so let's try that. Thanks

DEBATE:

The symbolic transfer of 'soveriegnty' has a certain appeal, but I don't think it's practical. The power vacuum in Iraq is immense and widespread chaos would probably follow. It might be more viable if and when Saddam is located, but that remains to be seen.

I don't doubt the sincerity of Chirac's position, I just don't think its viable right now.

Sorry I went off topic. I was tired of hearing France getting blamed and vilified again. And the UN speech should be coming up soon so I got carried away.

Passion51

What is it that you see us providing that you don't think the Iraqi's would be better at doing themselves as far as self rule goes? I think the problem that we are having is a lack of understanding in culture and language. I just don't see how a foreign power that isn't doing a very good job should force people who may be able to move things along from being able too. What if we never figure out how to get them to get along?

From what I'm reading the Iraqi Governing Council went to the French and Germans and asked for the plan the French put forth. This is what they want.

They went to Powell first but he said they weren't ready. Bremer once said they had to be satisfied with 'baby steps'. But if the job is taking so long it's only increasing resistance and insecurity isn't there a danger of waiting too long? The only thing that hasn't happened yet that was predicted is civil war...turns out there are more than two factions that this could include. Is the CPA preventing this from happening by their presence or is it something that could still erupt any time?



I just can't tell WHY the French plan wouldn't work.

good questions Horyok.

I have just now seen these and no doubt fodder for good debate. As I'm listening to Chirac's UN speech as I'm writing this you'll have to give me a few minutes more.

Later on...

In addressing point 2 first, I assume you are asking about Chirac's desire to see the Iraqi people take control of Iraq post haste.

Don't we all! My opinion is that yes, sooner rather than later. The US, the PEOPLE of the US, more than any others, considering the cost to the american people in lives and dollars want this to have a quick and successful ending. However, Chirac's "plan" and our "wishes" are just not realistic.

Iraq, in areas of Saddam's old strongholds, are not entirely secure yet. 33 years of NON-self-governing does not an overnight governing body make. There is no Constitution as of yet. There are no mechanisms for elections to take place yet. In the last round of terrorist bombing, a member of the Iraqi council had been attacked. For many more reasons than one the Iraqi council is still at a fragile stage and STILL need help.

As an aside, from what I understand, it took the US 5 years to get Germany under control. The Iraqis simply, for more reasons than one, are not ready. Chirac's sentiments are the sentiments of everyone. His desire to relinquish Iraq to the Iraqis is premature at this point.


POINT #1. Do I trust Chirac?
No. Chirac sees himself as the reicarnation of DeGaulle. France's economy suffers, It's population -old, France invents nothing and has lost it's past glory. Chirac, in trying to resurrect France's lagging economy and prestige in the International community has come up with this premise that in order to do that, it has to be a constant challenge to the US. Is THIS an Ally? NO. Chirac, misguidedly assumes that by opposing and thwarting the war on terror and going against the US and UK that he makes himself and France some great entity. This is his big mistake. Not that the US would ever enter into conflict with France but certainly we have lost respect for France's ability to put aside emotion in favor of vision for future world peace and security. He needs to STOP the ridiculous competition with the US. As it is now, the trust factor with France is desolved.
In this silly rush for competition he comes off as disingenuous, petty, and willing to allign himself with every despot available. This direction is the WRONG direction.

there is a saying..."Chirac never met a Dictator he didn't like"

NO, he is not trust-worthy in the least.

POINT#3. No
POINT#4. NO

I absolutely do NOT trust Chirac. He wants power turned over to the Iraqi governing council immediately, prior to a Constitution and prior to elections. This is the same council France called illegitimate a few weeks ago.

He wants to require the new resolution to avoid any usage of the word liberation and replace it with occupation.

He wants to require the Baathist Party to be recognized and be a legitimate part of the governing body.

Forget him and by using that F word I was being nice.

Let's look at that article shall we.
The first thing I noticed was a blatant lie in the first couple of sentences Chirac uttered. A wonderful way to start...

[quote=French Persident Jaques Chirac]Let me tell you what I think. To be frank, I never understood why there was this tension, which I observed but didn’t understand. We had differing views on the solution to a problem posed by Iraq. We gave our opinion. True, it wasn’t the same as the one held by the American administration. But as far as I know, we didn’t exhibit any kind of aggressiveness.[/quote]
No aggressiveness, he's joking right? Let's look at an earlier quote, the clearest example of French aggression on this issue.
[quote=French President Jaques Chirac]French President Jacques Chirac launched an unprecedented attack on the east European candidates for EU membership that signed two public letters of support for the American stance on Iraq. 
 
At the end of an emergency summit in Brussels, Mr Chirac called their behavior "childish" and warned it could have an impact on their hopes of joining the EU.[/quote]
Chirac blasts EU candidates
Regardless of the exact wording of the threat (there has been some disagreement of that issue) this statement was just that, an open threat... If Chirac wants to know why the tension perhaps he shook read his own speeches...
This issue is discussed in detail in the "Bullying Europe" thread the brief glossing over I just gave should be suitable for our purposes here. So then, with that falsehood fresh out of Chirac's mouth, the trust meter begins to plunge.
Moving on...
[quote]Naturally, we have our cultural background, our knowledge of the region, our judgment. We believe there is no concrete solution without transferring sovereignty to Iraq as swiftly as possible. Without giving this ancient people the possibility of assuming its own responsibilities. I believe it is psychologically and politically essential. 
 
Q: As quickly as possible? 
 
A: Very rapidly. 
 
Q: A month from now, as your foreign minister proposed? 
 
A: I will go back to that process. In our opinion, this is what will make it possible for us to restore calm and return to the path of stability in Iraq. How? Here and now, we must indicate the path, the orientation—that is, the transfer of sovereignty—through a decision by the UN, with the UN taking responsibility for the transfer of sovereignty. 
 
Q: To the occupying authority in Iraq, is that it? 
 
A: The transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. Now, what is Iraq? It is its currently existing bodies, i.e., the Council of Ministers and the current Governing Council. Yes, because they do exist. Once that decision is taken, we must then proceed concretely with its implementation, that is to say the transfer of responsibility, which will take a little time. 
 
Q: Sovereignty first and then responsibility? 
 
A: Sovereignty is a question of principle. We must tell the Iraqis, you are sovereign and you hold the key to your future…[/quote]
So here we are at the latest silly proposal, sovereignty in name only since he realizes full well as he admits that true sovereignty (power and responsibility) cannot be give in a month. A PR move with plenty of potential to backfire. Not to mention inconsistent with their previous position on the GC as Belladonna noted.
Next quote:
[quote]Right away. But naturally, concretely, one can’t imagine they have the means to do everything and to do it right away, so the responsibilities that correspond to the principle of sovereignty must be transferred little by little. For me that means, I don’t know, six months, nine months, something along those lines.[/quote]
So he asks for a timeline, but fails to propose one of his own, nice... He sounds a lot like the CPA he's criticizing right about now.
[quote=French President Jaques Chirac]As far as aid for security is concerned, I believe it should be assumed by the UN and managed by the United States, as the U.S. is making the largest contribution in terms of troops.[/quote]
At least he doesn't go in for the American incompetence route, implicitly admitted the US is the best choice to keep command of security forces. That much I concede to his judgement.
[quote=French President Jaques Chirac]Mr. President, in the event that the resolution doesn’t include the principle of an immediate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, would France oppose it? 
 
A: That is not at all my intent. We have no intention to oppose it. Opposing it would mean voting no. Imposing a veto. That is not at all my state of mind, unless the resolution presented a provocation. But that is not what’s currently being discussed. So we’ll see. We’ll talk. We may abstain or vote yes.[/quote]
Smart move here also, don't try to force everyone to except the plan, since it's meant only to elevate Chirac in the eyes of the French public. Keep your politics to yourself, thank you...
[quote] Mr. President, when you talk about the transfer of sovereignty, is that transfer symbolic? Because in Iraq, there is no Karzai. There’s no way to crown an Iraqi Karzai. So what does it mean for you, when you talk about a transfer? 
 
A: Today, sovereignty is exercised by the Americans, by the American governor. That’s a fact. I believe this is a very difficult situation for any people to accept in the 21st century. And particularly an ancient people, a people with a great culture, great traditions, a long history, and which moreover happens to be a different religion from the occupation forces, to call them by their name. It’s very hard to accept. So I think the first thing to do is to tell the Iraqi people, we are transferring your sovereignty back to you. It is up to the international community to tell them. It is up to the UN to make that decision. Then we will see how, but that’s the principle. No more foreign sovereignty.[/quote]
So in answer to the question, yes, purely symbolic.
[quote]Naturally, that presumes a certain number of things. It presumes, as I said before, that sovereignty will be transferred to a governmental body that already exists. It is what it is. It may not be ideal, but it exists. Sovereignty must be transferred to that body. That is the principle. From then on, the Iraqis will be sovereign. They will be free to choose their own destiny. Psychologically and politically, it’s essential. 
 
Q: But those 25 people don’t have a leader. 
 
A: I’d say it doesn’t matter. It’s so important to tell the Iraqis, "You are responsible for your own country. You may not be able to shoulder your responsibilities right now, but we will help you and you are responsible. It is you who make the political, administrative and economic decisions."[/quote]
Yeah give them the power, whether or not they're ready to handle it. It's really the thought that counts.
[quote=Chirac]In other words, preparations must be made for a constitution and for elections. 
 
A constitution, as you know, can be drafted very, very quickly. The Iraqis have a large number of very highly qualified legal scholars, very eminent people who know their culture and their country very well. In fact, they have already had a constitution. So if we give them the job of drafting a constitution, they will do it very quickly. It’s not our job to draw up a constitution for Iraq. In the name of what, and based on what knowledge of the country and its culture?[/quote]
If he would pay attention he'd know this process has already started (has been for at least over a month) under the leadership of the GC (Governing Council).
[quote=Chirac]So the drafting of a constitution is up to the Iraqis and is something that’s very easy to do.[/quote]
I mean it's not like thought needs to go into it, right?
[quote=Chirac]Q: Just to be more precise: The immediate transfer of sovereignty means that after the resolution, we could foresee a period of a month, or… 
 
A: No, no. Let’s not discuss the deadline, that’s very difficult. 
 
Q: But as quickly as possible. 
 
A: I repeat, sovereignty must be transferred to the Iraqis. What does that mean, the Iraqis? Well, right now, it means the existing governmental institutions. They’re not great, but they’re there. 
 
Those are the principles. From there, we can talk about transferring responsibilities. You’re in charge of such and such a ministry. Do what you want. If you need help, we will help you. 
 
Q: A symbolic transfer immediately… but isn’t there a reason to wait? 
 
A: There’s no reason to wait. It’s psychological, it’s a political act. Telling the Iraqis, "You are responsible for your destiny," now we will help you, but you are responsible; you’re not under the authority of a Christian or foreign governor—that’s a lot, isn’t it?[/quote]
OF course it may be that when you tell the GC there in charge, they might actually believe it and take responsibility. Nah...
So then, do I trust Chirac's intentions. No. I don't think even he believe this is a good plan, he's just playing domestic politics. His plan is not realistic, we can't just walk up to the GC and say you're in charge and expect that to be taken lightly. The next sovereign (in name and reality) government of Iraq should be democratic, that is the only chance for stability.

Well, there has been quite a number of points raised here; since I can't summarize them all, at leat I'll try to make an answer which (I hope) will be as global as possible.

I have noticed that Bush and Chirac were speaking to two different types of audiences yesterday at the UN. Bush was trying to convince the American opinion and tried to mend the differences with the UN. Chirac was talking to the UN on subjects that are mostly related to future issues : Iraq, terrorism and the transformation of the UN.

I think Chirac's speech was brilliant. His political skills are quite remarkable I have to say, and he's made clear what France's position is. Don't misunderstand my remarks though : I'm not a die-hard fan of Chirac and I disagree with his words to eastern European countries at the beginning of the year and I fail to understand why he was so condescendant with Saddam Hussein, for instance.

I think he's showing clear signs of adaptation to the situation and that is a sign of intelligence. It's a clear tactic for someone who's not the strongest : adaptation. If you think this attitude is silly, then you don't understand what world politics are about. He's changed his ways about the handout of sovereignty deadline for instance.

To the contrary, I have the impression that Bush's line has hardened. He can't give the American opinion the impression that he and his administration are losing ground in Iraq. I mean to say that the increasing cost in money and lives make the war unpopular in the States. That's not good for a president only one year away from election time, is it?

My conclusions are as follows :

Bush and Chirac are following different agendas and Iraq happens to be a common subject of discussion at the moment. Bush is concerned about the US, Chirac is concerned about the EU. The first because of elections, the second because he's trying to set a pace for Europe.

Like I have said before, we are the witness of changes. America cannot deal with all the problems, duties and responsibilities of this world ; Europe can't do it either. Both need each other and both have good reasons to believe they will prevail. The unity shown between France, Germany and Russia is a clear and strong alternative to the American position, in spite of Bush separate meetings with Chirac and Schroeder.

A journalist said today that Bush barely got any applause, but there was a round of applause for Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac. Why is that, do you think?

We'll see who has the upper hand in the end.

I hope it's the Iraqi people above all, and I hope also that the gap between Europe (or France if you prefer) and America is not getting wider. A middle way has to be found.

I would argue that it is because Bush has already been thoroughly demonized in the international media as an oil-hungry warmonger, not exactly the kind of leader that elicits applause. The member of the UN already had their minds made up, regardless of the contents of the speechs. Chirac could have done a handstand for a speech, as long as he ended it with a rebuke of "unilateralism" he'd be guaranteed applause.

Yes Chirac was politically brilliant in the interview. He was indeed appealing to Europe in a most skillful way. This has nothing to do, however, which trusting his intentions. Some of the worst leaders in history were skill orators. His comments on Iraq were simply that, skilled oratory devoid of practical applications. He was preaching to the converted. His empty proposal of giving Iraqi's "symbolic sovereignty" as if that would help anything (do you think for one moment the Iraqis wouldn't figure out this means nothing without true power, what happens then?) is a purely political stance. It has nothing to do with helping Iraqis so I have no reason to trust his intentions.

and your journalist would be wrong as I watched the speech Prs. Bush gave in it's entirety. He received an incredible applause that even surprised me.

It will be the Iraqi people who'll benefit in the end from the resolve of the US, the UK and Australia obviously, not from Chirac.

Then my sources were not correct. Sorry about that.

Like I said in my previous post, "We'll see who has the upper hand in the end." Quite frankly, we could debate forever about Bush and Chirac without being able to make a point. Neither of them is perfect or better but they're undoubtfully different.

I think that politics are a complicated matter, which creates complexity and actually thrives in complexity!

I've noticed than most of us recall bad attitudes or aspects that they don't like to bash down a leader. Sometimes, it's out of context. Sometimes, it's in the context. Most often, we forget to explain why these people did what they did and what was the situation they had to deal with.

It's too easy to say "I don't like him" without proper evidence. And I'm not talking about you especially, SC. This applies to all of us.