Posted on 09/29/2007 7:20:47 AM PDT by Republicain
Commentary by philosopher Andre Glucksmann
A word is enough to raise a storm. Commentators' inkwells began to boil over and the West European governments declared their disapproval in a very undiplomatic manner.
By citing the risk of war entailed by Iran's desire to build the bomb, and the need to prepare for this in order to avert it, did [French Foreign Minister] Bernard Kouchner commit blasphemy, displaying his naivety and lack of professionalism?
He was promptly admonished by his counterparts, Sergey Lavrov in Moscow and [Massimo] D'Alema in Rome ("we must not talk about war now.") It was the same in Berlin, albeit less directly. But we must accept the fact that the apparently untimely "blunder" by the French Doctor, the new French foreign minister, expresses a long-held opinion.
When, nine months before the presidential election, I, together with Yasmina Reza and Pascal Bruckner, interviewed [now President] Sarkozy, then a candidate, about the major guidelines of the foreign policy that he intended to pursue, his reply was both clear and resolute: "the Iranian crisis is certainly the most serious international crisis at present."
A year later, this diagnosis is even more accurate. What does this gravity demand? "Steadfastness," according to the future president, who has clearly not changed his mind. When he addressed France's ambassadors at the Elysee [president's office] 27 August 2007, he cited this terrible threat and stressed the need "to avert a catastrophic alternative: either the Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran." France's new "steadfastness" begins with a new language, rejecting circumlocutions and linguistic taboos: if there is a risk of war, it must not be concealed, but must on the contrary be identified, it must be spoken about clearly in order precisely to do everything possible to halt the escalation, before the "catastrophic alternative."
The timing was well calculated: Bernard Kouchner dropped his bombshell in the midst of the prevailing diplomatic reticence and used the word "war" on the eve of his visit to Moscow. The message was addressed primarily to his Russian opposite number, who protested, but who understands that if Moscow continues to block any real sanctions capable of backing up the Security Council's hitherto token remonstrance, France will work, outside the Council, to mobilize the EU, which accounts for over 50 per cent of Tehran's foreign trade.
This, with a view to tough economic sanctions in an attempt to halt Iran's nuclear spiral. In other words, Bernard Kouchner is urging the Europeans to circumvent Moscow's prevaricating manoeuvres at the United Nations.
When the wise man points to the moon, fools look at his finger. When Kouchner speaks of "war," many Europeans consider it a weighty word released like a pistol shot amid the subdued atmosphere of respectful negotiations.
The disclosure of Iran's secret and illegal effort to cross the military nuclear threshold dates back to August 2002. Since then, despite all the IAEA's confirmations, the negotiations - conducted mainly by London, Paris, and Berlin - have achieved no result.
The time has come honestly to assess the risks. Is there a danger? All experts are agreed on the technical capability of Iran's industry: 2-4 years will be enough to reach the point of no return. So time is pressing. But is the prospect of a nuclear Iran enough for the democracies to mobilize with all haste and to prevent the ultimate threshold from being crossed, like it or not? Or should we consider, as [former French president] Jacques Chirac did (in January 2007) that one more nuclear military power, or one fewer, is not something worth getting worked up over. Of course, the Cold War has remained cold, at the top: for 45 years deterrence prevented a warlike escalation between the two blocs. There was nothing automatic about this balance of terror, however. There was a succession of crises culminating in the Cuba crisis (1961,) in which, as US and Russian records show, the edge of the precipice was reached and the situation was barely salvaged by the prudence displayed! by Kennedy and Khrushchev.
The idea that an Iranian bomb would have no impact on world peace is the most ignorant fantasy, particularly since Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt do not intend to submit to Iran's nuclear hegemony, without themselves violating the nonproliferation treaty (NPT.) Then there would be trouble!
In the tiny scrap of land that is the near East, with its ill-defined borders, its overlapping communities, and its huge religious and oil stakes, the meddlers in Tehran are unwittingly paving the way to a nuclear civil war.
Has the deadlock in Iraq taught nobody anything? We think we know what we are saying when we talk about "guerrilla warfare," "Vietnam-ization," and so forth. We are mistaken. The Spanish guerrilla against Napoleon, the anti-Hitler resistance movements, and the anti-colonial insurrections primarily targeted foreign armies, secondly "collaborators," and occasionally the population in order to mobilize them through intimidation.
The order of targets is reversed in Iraq. The GIs are not the priority: they have lost 3,700 men in four years. During the "hot months" 3,000 Iraqis have been killed, mainly women and children, blown up not by the Americans but by the so-called "guerrilla." If the Americans are powerless, it is because they face an adversary capable of killing endless numbers of its own - the more I kill, the more you lose. It is impossible to protect every Iraqi against this indiscriminate kind of terrorism. The chaos is stronger than the helicopters, tanks, and money. We were acquainted with the "scorched earth" strategy in Russia that destroyed everything in the invader's path. Now homicidal and suicidal pyromaniacs are launching a merciless scorched people strategy. This is not resistance against the occupier, not even civil war, but, a more diabolical total war against civilians.
There is nothing in this to move Iran's mullahs, who say, via the "moderate" Rafsanjani, that they are prepared to accept the destruction of 15 million of their people for the sake of the religious glory of eradicating the Zionist entity, this being the necessary prelude to a universal pursuit of crusaders and infidels.
The sacrifice of one's own people and of oneself, the systematic self-destruction of a people until the obsessive fury is exhausted, is by no means an unprecedented sickness. The collective cruelty that horrified Montaigne and the blood, devastation, and death that appalled Grimmelhausen remind us that such scourges are European. But none of those madmen yet had the nuclear toys that we do.
Excellent read.
When the wise man points to the moon, fools look at his finger.
My favorite line. Perfect illustration of Bush and the Democrats.
Boy, what a sea change from the limp-wristed Chirac gov’t.
There has never been any deadlock in Iraq. The problem has been that Western Intellectuals and politicians cannot grasp the fact that Counter Insurgency is not Total War. This is not some sort of Hollwerid action movie where everything can be sorted out to the audience satisfaction in 2 hours and 20 mins
Bumperoo
There is another reason for what has been termed a deadlock.
Democrats and other American enemies mistake the natural proclivity for Arabs to be very deliberative and in western eyes, slow to make decisions for purposeful opposition.
We are accustomed to making decisions based on daily or certainly quarterly change. That is not the case for Arabs who consider 6 months rapid and a year ordinary for decisions.
Now THAT post was even better than the original article.
Kudos!
One of the best I’ve seen in ages...to the point, concise, spot on!
These are the entities with whom we are supposed to "negotiate." The EU-3 negotiated for five years with these ratbastards, offered them everything they had to give, and got nowhere. But the 'rat "candidates" all say they are gonna save the day by "talking to our enemies." I'd like to see the evidence that the suicidal deathcult islamic crackpots in Iran can be talked out of anything.
No, the Frenchman is right: we either have an Iran with The Bomb or we bombard Iran. There is no third choice. Talk till you're blue in the face and you just end up with option 1, but out of breath.
his counterparts, Sergey Lavrov in Moscow and [Massimo] D'Alema in RomeEvil Empires alert.
ah, alas...
You said ‘war’, Mr Kouchner, and you were not mistaken...
LeFigaro | Sept, 25, 2007 | Andre Glucksmann
Posted on 09/25/2007 9:12:17 PM EDT by nuconvert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902137/posts
Why are do you brand those men evil when Kouchner is an admitted murderer?
Kouchner used to perform euthanasia on unsuspecting patients of his. He is a socialist killer and to see him praised sickens me.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1845225.ece
Kouchner has also been a long-term outspoken proponent of euthanasia, admitting to having practised it by giving large morphine injections or turning off life-support machines, although significantly never in France.
“When people were suffering too much and I knew they were going to die I helped them. I did that in Lebanon, I did that in Vietnam. I gave injections to people, never pills, injections with lots of morphine,” he told the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland when he was health minister in 2001.
Even more controversially, he called the nurse Christine Malèvre, who was arrested and charged with killing up to 30 terminally ill patients at a hospital in a Paris suburb in 1998, “an angel of mercy”. She was later sentenced to 10 years in jail for murder. When his colleague in government, the then interior minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement, fell into a coma after a routine operation later in 1998, his first words on regaining consciousness were: “Keep that man Kouchner away from my bedside.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.