The irony of the French

[Jocko]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886393.asp?0cv=CB10) today....

“To act without the legitimacy of the United Nations, to favor the use of force over law, is taking a heavy responsibility,” Chirac said.

Heavy responsibility, huh? I don't put too much faith in such vague terms.

Kind of like the way the French didn't like the vagueness of "serious consequences."

Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Jocko
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886393.asp?0cv=CB10) today....



Heavy responsibility, huh? I don't put too much faith in such vague terms.

Kind of like the way the French didn't like the vagueness of "serious consequences."

Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

Serious consequences is a very vague term, whether you like it or not. One thing "serious consequences" certainly is not is a euphemism for war. The United Nations euphemism for war is all necessary means

Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at Oxford University had this to say: “There is no way in ordinary language that you can say that the language used in Resolution 1441 represents an authorization to use force.”

In other words, Lowe said, “It needs a Security Council resolution to authorize force, that is to say, it has to be plain from the next resolution that the Security Council itself is giving that authorization to use force. It’s not at all obvious to me that a resolution that makes a simple determination of material breach would do that.”

In conclusion, Lowe said that for the U.S. and Britain to attack Iraq without a further resolution would be not merely “ill-considered,” but would represent a move “outside the scope of legal controls that have been freely assumed and have underpinned the international order for the last half-century.”

[Richard G]

Screw euphemisms. You can't get any of those mealy mouthed nations to say anything concrete, because they're too duplicitous and chicken-****. A resolution mandating war if "X" doesn't happen would never even be considered by the sackless.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Richard G
Screw euphemisms. You can't get any of those mealy mouthed nations to say anything concrete, because they're too duplicitous and chicken-****. A resolution mandating war if "X" doesn't happen would never even be considered by the sackless.

If this is what you really believe then i feel sorry for you.

[Michael Redman]

The US and UK made it quite clear before passage fo the resolution, using clear terms, that they viewed the language as authorizing force. No secret was made of the fact that they believed that this resolution would authorize the use of force. Any member not wanting to authorize force was free then to make an objection, and have to wording changed, or rejected. They didn't.

Would purpose would the resolution have had if not to intimidate Saddam into compliance with the threat of force? It didn't impose any new requirements or in any other way change the relationship between the UN and Iraq. What meaning could it have possibly had if not the threaten force?

Or are there actually people deluded enough to think that Saddam was cooperating, and would continue to cooperate, simply because the UN made a demand? That the threat of force wasn't absolutely necessary?

It is only because the French have assured Saddam that this threat was a bluff, that war appears imminent now.

[efrex]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The US and UK made it quite clear before passage fo the resolution, using clear terms, that they viewed the language as authorizing force. No secret was made of the fact that they believed that this resolution would authorize the use of force. Any member not wanting to authorize force was free then to make an objection, and have to wording changed, or rejected. They didn't.
Actually, not quite the case. As is often the situation with these things, the language of Resolution 1441 was deliberately couched in such terms as to let each side see what they wanted. John Negroponte, America's UN Ambassador said
"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process...Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken"(from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-uniraq8nov08.story) back in November. Found thanks to Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/march0303.html#031803211am) .)

It's an old story... a "law" is passed with enough deliberate holes in it to let everyone read what they want to in it, and then get ticked when someone else sees it differently.:rolleyes:

[Martin]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The US and UK made it quite clear before passage fo the resolution, using clear terms, that they viewed the language as authorizing force

Irrelevant. How the US and UK view the language in no way alters the legal position.

No secret was made of the fact that they believed that this resolution would authorize the use of force. Any member not wanting to authorize force was free then to make an objection, and have to wording changed, or rejected. They didn't

Put it the other way round. Any member wanting to authorize force could have tabled a resolution explicitly doing so. They didn't. Why not? Do you think such a resolution would have passed?

Would purpose would the resolution have had if not to intimidate Saddam into compliance with the threat of force? It didn't impose any new requirements or in any other way change the relationship between the UN and Iraq. What meaning could it have possibly had if not the threaten force?

It did threaten force - as one possible interpretation of 'serious consequences'.

Or are there actually people deluded enough to think that Saddam was cooperating, and would continue to cooperate, simply because the UN made a demand? That the threat of force wasn't absolutely necessary?

Yes, the threat of force was neccesary. But there are two points that the pro-war lobby often overlook when making that argument - one, the credible threat of force is meaningless without a credible prospect for peace, and two, the purpose of threatining force is to avoid using force.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Martinm
Irrelevant. How the US and UK view the language in no way alters the legal position.Incorrect. However, the "legal position" is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.Put it the other way round. Any member wanting to authorize force could have tabled a resolution explicitly doing so. They didn't. Why not? Do you think such a resolution would have passed?Yes, both sides could have made it more clear, and they didn't for diplomatic reasons. That's obvious. So is the fact that there was no reason to pass a resolution not at least threatening force, and as we aren't to assume that the resolution was intended to be meaningless, it must have been a threat to use force. As efrex points out, there was discussion about the fact that the security council would have to conclude at some later date that force was to be used, and that the US wasn't free to go in shooting as soon as the resolution passed, but they did not state whether a new resolution, or simply a meeting, would be necessary.It did threaten force - as one possible interpretation of 'serious consequences'.Exactly. And it is that threat that France effectively destroyed by stating that it would veto any use of force.Yes, the threat of force was neccesary. But there are two points that the pro-war lobby often overlook when making that argument - one, the credible threat of force is meaningless without a credible prospect for peace, and two, the purpose of threatining force is to avoid using force. Give me an example of a pro-war lobbiest (of which I am certainly not one) making either the argument that:

A) The credible threat of force is useful without the credible threat of peace, or;

B) The purpose of threatening force is not to avoid using force.

I'm not pro-war. I just think that Franch has effectively destroyed any possibility for the Security Council to reach a peaceful resolution, by it's complete unwillingness to go along with a unified credible threat of force.

[headscratcher4]

I am certainly not "pro" war, and think George Bush has been a diplomatic disaster for the US that will take a long time to fix...however, in saying this, it is my observation that France was/is willing to do everything it can to find compromise that works for Saddam, appeases Saddam, that gives Saddam more time to comply, etc., when Saddam is recognized by everyone as a liar, murderer, torturer, dissembler, etc. Whereas France couldn't seem to find away to be proactive in trying to find compromises with either Bush or Blair...i.e. France's only tool when it came to dealing with allies was the veto.

Now, this is not to excuse the failure of US "diplomacy" or the intractability and stubbornness of the US position. Rather, it is merely to note that the French position here, in its own way, was as stubborn, un-bending and inflexible as Bush. Chirac put his "international" reputation on the line, not to find a compromise, not to lead the UN into some sort of alternative position, not to embarrass the US by being flexible, but to embarrass and push the US by being a "bully" as well. By this I mean France used the only tool it had -- the Veto -- but it didn't use it as a prod, a nudge or a carrot. Instead, it used it -- like Bush used his threat of US military might -- as a stick.

The failure at the UN, it seems to me, ultimately may be Bush's, but France also played a significant roll in the failure. As noble as Chirac has tried to be, e.g. wondering where regime change ends if we go down this path, I can't help thinking that his position gives no room for international action for regime change. Maybe that is right.

Maybe only Saddam isn't the perfect case for the "moral" argument here, but I think History shows there is a case, and the west -- Including France -- has failed repeatedly. Given the Pol Pots of the world, the Hitlers and Stalins, etc. Somewhere there is a case to be made for change and international action. France didn't articulate that any better than Bush with it's "non!".

In the end, for good or ill, this is Bush's war. However, Chirac and France, it seems to me, have little to be proud of. They have won a short-term public victory over opinion, but they have crippled the ability of the international community to deal effectively with conflict and crisis and not realistically contributed to the pursuit of international law (whatever that means). The world and the US may come to regret Bush's action. However, in the long-term, I fear that the world will also come to regret France's inability to articulate words, ideas and possibilities other than "non".

[Michael Redman]

Well said. Please refer any further questions to headscratcher, behind whom I will be hiding.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Well said. Please refer any further questions to headscratcher, behind whom I will be hiding.

Not while I can still dodge, weave, evade and point backwards shouting: "it's him, it's him...oh, god, get him, that one right there!"

;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
And it is that threat that France effectively destroyed by stating that it would veto any use of force

Just to clarify, France didn't say they'd veto any use of force; what Chirac said was they'd veto any resolution which contained an ultimatum that would lead to war, as long as weapons inspectors were happy to stay in Iraq.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2838269.stm)

Which is what Resolution 1441 says:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Source (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I am certainly not "pro" war, and think George Bush has been a diplomatic disaster for the US that will take a long time to fix...however, in saying this, it is my observation that France was/is willing to do everything it can to find compromise that works for Saddam, appeases Saddam, that gives Saddam more time to comply, etc., when Saddam is recognized by everyone as a liar, murderer, torturer, dissembler, etc. Whereas France couldn't seem to find away to be proactive in trying to find compromises with either Bush or Blair...i.e. France's only tool when it came to dealing with allies was the veto.

Now, this is not to excuse the failure of US "diplomacy" or the intractability and stubbornness of the US position. Rather, it is merely to note that the French position here, in its own way, was as stubborn, un-bending and inflexible as Bush. Chirac put his "international" reputation on the line, not to find a compromise, not to lead the UN into some sort of alternative position, not to embarrass the US by being flexible, but to embarrass and push the US by being a "bully" as well. By this I mean France used the only tool it had -- the Veto -- but it didn't use it as a prod, a nudge or a carrot. Instead, it used it -- like Bush used his threat of US military might -- as a stick.

The failure at the UN, it seems to me, ultimately may be Bush's, but France also played a significant roll in the failure. As noble as Chirac has tried to be, e.g. wondering where regime change ends if we go down this path, I can't help thinking that his position gives no room for international action for regime change. Maybe that is right.

Maybe only Saddam isn't the perfect case for the "moral" argument here, but I think History shows there is a case, and the west -- Including France -- has failed repeatedly. Given the Pol Pots of the world, the Hitlers and Stalins, etc. Somewhere there is a case to be made for change and international action. France didn't articulate that any better than Bush with it's "non!".

In the end, for good or ill, this is Bush's war. However, Chirac and France, it seems to me, have little to be proud of. They have won a short-term public victory over opinion, but they have crippled the ability of the international community to deal effectively with conflict and crisis and not realistically contributed to the pursuit of international law (whatever that means). The world and the US may come to regret Bush's action. However, in the long-term, I fear that the world will also come to regret France's inability to articulate words, ideas and possibilities other than "non".


I carnt believe I'm sticking up for Chirac and his crew :eek:

Anyway, France offered to negotiate on the resolution the UK was hawking round, but the US dumped on their idea of benchmarks instead of "tests":

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2848593.stm)

I mean, does anyone believe that the "key test" of
a public statement by Saddam Hussein, broadcast in Iraq, admitting possession of weapons of mass destruction, stating his regime has decided to give them up and pledging to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
Source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,912707,00.html)

was anything other than to provoke Saddam into war?