Posted on 03/07/2003 5:45:49 PM PST by MadIvan
So often the grey man of British diplomacy, Jack Straw last night let rip at the French foreign minister in front of a shocked UN Security Council, calling on the international community to enforce the disarmament of Iraq "on its own terms".
In what one admiring American delegate referred to as a "diplomatic call to arms", Mr Straw spelled out in the clearest terms that time had effectively run out for Saddam Hussein, his lies and his prevarications.
He launched an impassioned tirade at Dominique de Villepin and France's policy on Iraq in an outburst that marked a new extreme of rhetoric in the row over how to deal with Saddam.
Staring M de Villepin in the eye and packing his speech with liberal references to "Dominique", Mr Straw directed what turned into an ad hominem assault on his French counterpart.
Mr Straw heaped scorn on the logic of countries - especially France - that are set on giving Iraq more time. "Dominique, you said that the choice before us was disarmament by peace or disarmament by war," Mr Straw said. "Dominique, that's a false choice."
M de Villepin, by far the most charismatic spokesman for the anti-war camp, had no option but to sit through his reprimand. But the expression on his face - and its colour - betrayed rage at his treatment.
The ambush - the French, like everyone else in the room, had no idea what was coming - was the most heated public spat between a senior British and French official in recent times.
It was all the more unexpected because, as Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw has earned a reputation as one of the most colourless, if solid, performers on the world stage.
Whether by accident or design, Mr Straw deployed two English borrowings from French to tear into his opponent. He attacked the concept of "automaticité", the notion that voting for UN resolutions against Iraq automatically triggered war, which was a "canard", he thundered.
Giving the UN chamber a taste of the invective and emotion normally confined to the Dispatch Box in the Commons, Mr Straw also laid into M de Villepin over his underplaying of the role of US and British troops in the Gulf.
The presence of "young men willing to put their lives on the line for this body, the UN", was the key factor in compelling Saddam to make concessions, not diplomacy, he said.
The passion of his argument over the impact of the military threat as opposed to diplomatic pressure appeared to put Mr Straw off his stride. "Dominique, with respect to you, my good friend, I think it's the other way round. I really do.
"The strong outside pressure is, and let's be blunt about this, the presence of over 200,000 US and UK young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of this body the United Nations."
Mr Straw continued: "There is only one possible, sensible conclusion that we can draw. We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We have to put this man to the test.
"The Iraqis have the answer already - it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell."
He said Britain, the United States and Spain were tabling an amended resolution giving Saddam 10 more days to disarm peacefully and warned fellow foreign ministers on the council that if Iraq did not comply, action must follow.
"The council must send Iraq a clear message that we will resolve this crisis on the United Nations' terms, the terms which the council established a month ago when we unanimously adopted resolution 1441."
Gesticulating to emphasise his points and straining to keep the reading of his notes to a minimum while making eye contact with those seated around him, Mr Straw demanded that the council must not retreat from its demands set out in 1441.
"What we need is an irreversible and strategic decision by Iraq to disarm, to yield to the inspectors all of its weapons of mass destruction and all relevant information which it could and should have provided at any time in the last 12 years."
The international community had a duty to remember that the only reason that Saddam had changed in recent weeks and furnished inspectors with more information "was for one thing only - the pressure on the regime. Strong outside pressure."
The only way to achieve disarmament "is by backing our diplomacy with a credible display of force".
"We have to increase the pressure and put this man to the test," he said of Saddam in a pointed attempt to heighten the impact of his words by demonstrating that Britain felt it was dealing with a recognisable figure rather than a faceless regime.
"He can act with astonishing speed when he wants", by handing over thousands of pages of documents within days when the pressure builds on him.
And I would agree with you.
Korea? Only because the Soviets had stormed out and weren't present. That certainly won't be repeated.Gulf One? November resolution? You're looking at this the wrong way....The real question is what does the U.N. accomplish that would not have been accomplished anyway? Would Kuwait have been liberated? I'm betting yes. And the November resolution wouldn't have been necessary. At all. As a matter of fact, I'd bet that Iraq would have been more likely to cooperate if it didn't have the hope of U.N. infighting to bail it out.
The fatal weakness of the U.N., which unfortunately is an essential element, is the veto system. You cannot get anything major through the SC unless you have the agreement of the major world powers. But if you have the agreement of the major world powers, then why do you need the U.N. to act?
The U.N. only works effectively in situations where you don't need the U.N. anyway.
Hahhahaa, it just gets better and better :) Australia makes pretty good wine, I prefer Boone's Farm. Never bought French anything, actually.
You miss the point. We can't operate under U.N. auspices unless we have consensus support anyway. Remember the veto? And your argument turns right on its head in the current situation. Now, because we "must" go through the U.N., we can be portrayed as outlaws. In this circumstance, it is horribly counterproductive to our interests.
I hate to be contentious, but weasels and ferrets make cool pets. They infinitely add more to the world than the French will ever do...
Yep, seen your name around before. Just a little surprised at the position you took on this thread. See when someone posts a thread, and I don't agree with the sentiments, I don't reply. I'm just rather shocked that someone can defend the UN and France :)
Whatever, rock on...
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 28th Floor (885 Second Avenue) New York NY 10017 USA Tel: (1 212) 745 9250 Fax: (1 212) 745 9316
E-mail: uk@un.int
Website: http://www.ukun.org/
Strangely, no email address for Tony Blair that I could see but sent to the house(s) of Commons and Lords. Thank you. Coincidentally, as I was typing the emails, cspan was replaying Mr. Straws' comments and got me reved again.
French is mispronounced, bastardized gutter-Latin...or so I've heard.
Yeah right. And someday, you will even be able to explain why British intelligence cannot provide better than an academic paper written in 1991 to assert Iraq's current WMDs, and why they also have, along with the US, to provide El Baradei with fake (uh, sorry, "not authentic") documents.
This whole think is really turning into a contest of ridicule.
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.