Posted on 02/04/2003 2:44:07 PM PST by Indy Pendance
LE TOUQUET, France (AP) -- France refused to cave in to intense pressure from Britain Tuesday to support a U.S.-led coalition ready to take quick military action against Iraq.
With Washington saying a war could be weeks away, President Jacques Chirac calmly appealed for patience, expressing unqualified faith in the U.N. inspectors who are searching for banned weapons in Iraq.
"We must let the inspectors do their jobs," Chirac said at a news conference after a summit with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Asked how much time the weapons inspectors should have - weeks or months, he responded: "I can't put a time frame on it. It's up to them to decide."
As to whether France - the leading proponent for a slower, more cautious approach on disarming Iraq - might eventually join a military operation, Chirac said: "We're still far from that ... There is still much to be done in the way of disarmament by peaceful means."
The president declined to comment on what circumstances might compel France to concede that war is the only option.
Chirac is under pressure from all sides. The French public is overwhelmingly anti-war; meanwhile, Britain has suggested that the United Nations would be discredited if it fails to crack down on Iraq. France's position is key, as it holds veto power in the U.N. Security Council.
Blair came to this quiet resort on the English Channel hoping to persuade Chirac to support a second U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
President Bush has called for a "coalition of the willing" to back him on Iraq and has said that only "weeks, not months" remain for diplomacy.
Blair supports Bush's stance that U.N. backing might not be necessary. But his government has stressed that it would be better to win Security Council support, which means winning over France.
For the time being, Blair and Chirac agreed to disagree.
"Of course there are the differences that are familiar to people," Blair said - although he cited two common points: "support for the notion of disarming Iraq" and the "belief that this is best pursued through the United Nations."
Britain is sending 35,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to prepare for action. Chirac has insisted repeatedly that the decision on whether to go to war rests with the Security Council - not the United States.
At the news conference, Chirac appeared momentarily exasperated by the barrage of questions on the French position.
Then he joked: "Sometimes I ask myself if this is a game, or if people see me as someone who doesn't understand anything, to whom you have to ask the same question in different ways so that maybe, finally, it will reach his brain."
Chirac declined to comment on whether France would use its veto as one of five permanent members of the Security Council to block a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. France has hinted it might be willing to do so.
Chirac also said France is waiting to see what Secretary of State Colin Powell and chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei will say to the Security Council in the coming days.
Powell is set to present evidence Wednesday to the Security Council that Iraq has hidden large caches of weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors and has defied calls to disarm.
Blix and ElBaradei will deliver a progress report to the Security Council on Feb. 14 - seen as a key step that could help swing the diplomatic balance on military action against Iraq.
"We have the inspectors' report coming out on Feb 14. I think we should take account of it very carefully," Blair said at the news conference.
Both leaders said the talks were friendly and cordial, and were eager to stress the areas on which they did agree: cracking down on illegal immigration, or promoting the study of French in British schools and vice versa.
Last week, eight European leaders - including Blair - wrote a statement of support for Bush, indirectly reprimanding France and Germany for mounting pressure against U.S. preparations for war. Germany has said flatly it would not participate in any military operation against Iraq.
Also Tuesday, Australian Prime Minister John Howard gave his strongest hint yet that he is prepared for military strikes to disarm Iraq - even without U.N. backing.
Howard told the Australian parliament that he thought existing U.N. resolutions "provide a sufficient legal basis for military action without the express need for a further resolution."
France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday...
From the thread:
So ultimately, france might not count worth spit anyway.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, France's veto would give the UN no choice. They would have to stand aside. While the U.S., who is not bound by France's veto, takes care of business.
France can ruin the UN. But they are powerless to stop the U.S.
That answer to that question is binary.
The former resolution, 1441, stipulates "serious consequences" upon Iraq if it fails to meet the obligations imposed.
The resistance that we are getting from France has nothing to do with "world opinion", nor with their supposed respect or disdain for the use of "war" in a unilateral fashion. I don't recall France having a UN mandate to make "war" upon the people of a third world country, merely because of some paternal passion.
I would offer that the use of the French military in the Ivory Coast last month, coincidently to impose peace in a former French colony, is more of an example of the attitude that you try to ascribe to the United States.
There are 10 countries in Europe that have signed a document supporting the United States postion. 2 countries in Europe are opposed - France, Germany. In Total, there are well over 61 countries that have aligned themselves with the United States in this regard.
I don't know where you get this "most of the rest of the world" comment, but I suspect it has something to do with the color of your glasses.
Saddam is an threat to world peace.
Saddam must be disarmed.
Saddam has failed to disarm himself.
The NEXUS of Saddam and Al Queda (currently in Iraq) present a clear and present danger to the safety of the United States.
The United States may exercise it's soverign right of self-defense - regardless.
By vetoing the obvious, France will destroy any credibility the UN has on future demands. This is so basic, I cannot understand those who don't see it.
President Chirac standing next to PM Blair
I'd much rather be compared to Archie Bunker than be a self-identified shill for a tinpot dictator.
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.