Chirac will not allow the United States and Britain to administer post-war Iraq

Lincoln · March 21, 2003, 23:06

Just one question: What exactly is he going to do about it? I have nothing against France but this guy is really out of touch with reality. What is he going to do, threaten a veto again?

-----------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2873701.stm

DRoseDARs · March 21, 2003, 23:08

Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

Verto · March 21, 2003, 23:12

Won't allow us? Let our soldiers do the dirty work, then push us aside and let them take care of things?

DRoseDARs · March 21, 2003, 23:16

The moment the Iraqis rise up against the French intermediaries...

*Swerves to avoid obvious joke...*

Dominikos · March 21, 2003, 23:17

Interesting, this might allow us to implement the lessons we learned from administering post-war Germany and Japan.

In Afghanistan we didn't have to administer anything, however, Iraq is no Afghanistan.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

faded glory · March 21, 2003, 23:18

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 23:24

I can't say I'm surprised...

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 23:32

1. Don't be fooled by the title. France's official objective is to have the UN rebuilding, and not the only US and UK. It is a very different thing than rejecting all help that would come from the US and the UK.

2. the aim of this diplomatic argument (it is a mere argument right now - it can become ugly later, or become soothed) is to push the UN at the frontstage of Iraqi reconstruction, hence giving to France part of the responsibility in the reconstruction, and also part of the loot.

3. The US and UK might turn to the UN for reconstruction, because a UN funded reconstruction will spare them tons of money. Only in 2 situations would US and UK not ask the UN to take care of the reconstruction :
- if they have nearly no interest in it, and won't give a **** about what becomes Iraq once their objectives are reached. It is unlikely, because the US knows very much the mayhem that would emerge of an Iraq void of authority.
- if they have an incredibly strong interest in it, and are ready to put tons of money in a long and ungrateful task, in order to avoid any chaos originating from Iraq. US/UK want to install a beacon of democracy for the ME in Iraq, but I doubt the spend-cuts prone Bush admin will give enough money for this aim in the long run.

The US/UK could also try to occupy by themselves Iraq just to lower the position of the UN and to give an utter diplomatic defeat to Chirac, but that would be an irresponsible move.

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

This statement is true for the past 7 years. Do you imagine how low we'd lay of the US had been obsessed with France for that long ?

monkspider · March 21, 2003, 23:37

Spiff is spot-on.

HolyWarrior · March 21, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

The US/UK could also try to occupy by themselves Iraq just to lower the position of the UN and to give an utter diplomatic defeat to Chirac, but that would be an irresponsible move.

Just like the fable of the little red hen. The UN doesn't do jack, but they want to run Iraq after US and UK do the dirty work?

Ain't gonna happen!

DRoseDARs · March 21, 2003, 23:40

For the French out there in 'Polyland, don't get me wrong, I don't hate or even dislike France. hey've been a good ally forever it seems. It really isn't countries that start making themselves look irrelevant and foolish, it's their leaders and their subsequent actions.

Well, exception made for the American public...but that's another beast all together, what with its obsession with SUVs, "Reality TV" and Quarter-pounders with cheese...

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 23:40

Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

Verto · March 21, 2003, 23:44

Leave my SUV out of this!

Gatekeeper · March 21, 2003, 23:47

Insofar as I am concerned, Chirac isn't helping the United Nations one iota with his most recent commentary. He keeps it up, and the U.N. will not only be shown to be toothless when it comes to its vaunted resolutions, but toothless as well when it comes to taking a good part in the reconstruction of Iraq (or any other nation, for that matter).

Perhaps this is case where the permanent Security Council members should just keep their traps *shut* and let the day-to-day U.N. workers — many of whom I genuinely believe have the best of intentions — do their work? Y'know, it's kind of like when your boss says something incredibly stupid in front of a client and, you, as a mere employee have to keep your mouth shut, despite screaming inside that, "Hey! Don't listen to him/her! S/he's just being a blowhard!"

Gatekeeper

Lancer · March 21, 2003, 23:50

Spiffor, you contradict yourself. You speak of "loot" the French want from rebuilding, and cost "tons of money" that US/UK would incur.

Which is it?

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

Don't hesitate to use it again in the future, because he'll miss many more again. (this time I know where the reference comes from

)

But OTOH, I think it would be far better for the stability in the region if UN was in charge of the reconstruction. I have posted long on the issue few days ago, so I'll be short here :
- UN-led reconstruction's funding will not be dependent on the financial priorities of the US, which can be pretty shortsighted before the voting.
- UN has a much higher experience in rebuilding countries, with a wide array of specialized and experienced services on construction, education, infrastructure, food, water, childhood etc. The US would have to start such agencies from scratch.
- UN has much more experience in looking for compromises, and this will be a needed feat in a country where Kurds, Shias and Sunnis will want to defend their interests, and where bordering countries like Turkey, Saudi or Iran will exert pressure too (not forgetting the US)
- UN is likely to pour more money in the long run than the US. Especially because it knows how ungrateful and long a reconstruction process can be.
- UN will be less open to clientelism from the factions, and should not give more aid to a faction that's more loyal. A US/UK led action would use any tool available to keep its legitimacy, including aid.

Verto · March 21, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Spiffor, you contradict yourself. You speak of "loot" the French want from rebuilding, and cost "tons of money" that US/UK would incur.
Which is it?

France will be deprived of its former contracts with the Iraqi sate if US/UK rebuilds, and hence gets the authority of deciding who gets the oilfields.
For the greater sake of TotalFinaElf, it is necessary for Chirac to lower US/UK role in reconstruction, in order for the UN to write a splendid little paragraph "former contracts taken by the Iraqi State will remain".
A UN-led reconstruction would also limit the chances of installing a Washington's puppet regime.

DRoseDARs · March 21, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

*DRose decides it's time for new sig material to use...*

Lancer · March 22, 2003, 00:00

So, the US/UK won't incur such costs if they don't let the French in to force the new Iraqi government to accept contracts signed by a tyrant.

faded glory · March 22, 2003, 00:02

FYI, there is already an interim government backed by the coalition. Its the Iraqi National Congress. The UN will have very little role in governing. The INC has said they will not honor French/Russian oil and telecom contracts under any conditions.

tough luck

Drake Tungsten · March 22, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

But OTOH, I think it would be far better for the stability in the region if UN was in charge of the reconstruction.

I completely agree, but Chirac's rhetoric is hurting the chances for UN involvement in a post-war Iraq. America and Britain are not going to beg the French for support, which is what Chirac (and Schroeder if reports are to be believed) really wants...

BTW, I'm flattered Dros...

faded glory · March 22, 2003, 00:03

oh yes, the INC has made this a matter of public knowledge. They have said it many times since the passage of 1441

Joseph · March 22, 2003, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

I tell you Chirac is worried that the US and British are going to find all of those photo of Chirac and Saddam getting it on.

Last week the editor in chief of US New and World report stated that when we find all of the paper on what France has been doing in Iraq, there is going to be a scandal in the French government.

faded glory · March 22, 2003, 00:14

haha that would be great!

Spiffor · March 22, 2003, 00:14

FG :
And there are absolutely no chances the INC is a puppet to the coalition.

Drake :
That might be true that Chirac is lowering the chances of the UN taking over. However, it is needed to make your position known before entering a bargaining. Don't forget this was at a EU meeting, not at an official UNSC speech.
Would there be no opposition to the US/UK taking over, the UN would have been completely screwed in the whole thing as well as anti-war countries : the UN would merely have rubberstamped the war afterwards, and more importantly, would have paid for a reconstruction masterminded by the US and its interests.
I know there is much hypocrisy from Chirac, to say the least, but no opposition whatsoever to US/UK's plan for the reconstruction would hurt pretty everyone except the US' interests.

Odin · March 22, 2003, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
oh yes, the INC has made this a matter of public knowledge. They have said it many times since the passage of 1441

So thats why Chirac was being such a @sshole.

He didn't want to loose the oil contracts.

Chirac is really looking like and idiot.

I can't belive Chirac cares more about oil than the Iraqi people, he is looking more and more like Bush.

faded glory · March 22, 2003, 00:16

"FG :
And there are absolutely no chances the INC is a puppet to the coalition."

So? Who said puppets are a bad thing? (Post World War II ex.)

Besides hardly puppets. We have support the INC since the early 80's

notyoueither · March 22, 2003, 00:19

Japan and SK are already signed on to help with reconstruction. I really doubt more help is needed, especially if a large part of the oil infrastructure is left intact.