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.
Listen to me very carefully: it is time for your country to take a massive dose of shut the hell up. For weeks now your nation has been trying to weasel out of doing the right thing; claiming higher morality, claiming purer motives, looking down your snobby noses at the British and Americans in the process.
Get the message and get a bloody clue: SHUT UP. We are going into battle shortly to get rid of this dictator, with or without your approval, which we should never need in the first place. You neither have the power, nor the righteousness to stop it. The least you can do is maintain a dignified silence as the serious nations of the world go into battle once again to make it safe for you to be the pretentious, egotistical blighters that you are.
Again I say, SHUT UP. Tell Chirac to put a sock in it. Tell de Villepin to put some duct tape over his mouth. Tell your Socialist Party to take a collective dose of silence. We are sick of you, your country, and all that it does.
If we do find that Saddam's newest weapons do have "Made in France" stamped on them, and indeed that the Washington Times is right, and French companies have been supplying him with replacement parts in spite of the embargo, then vengeance will shortly follow. Not military vengeance, but the vengeance of your country being in a state of perpetual disgrace will bring.
One final thing: get your troops the hell out of Ivory Coast. I don't recall you going to the UN for approval for that military action, mate.
Ivan
Second, however impressive may your future accomplishments be in Iraq, that won't change much. Anti-americanism is an irrational and deep feeling which is here to stay, and France is in no way specific. Succeed in Iraq, and you will gain greater resentment. Fail, and you will get lower respect. Sad but true. And, in the long run, France will gain in both cases with its "voice of reason" posture.
Also, there's a bilateral treaty between France and Cote d'Ivoire. It's all perfectly legal to invervene for french troops if the Ivory government gives the go-ahead. No legal need for the UN in this case.
If it's irrational then it cannot be cured by rational means. Sod it. Doing what is right should be our primary concern, and that is all.
Succeed in Iraq, and you will gain greater resentment. Fail, and you will get lower respect. Sad but true. And, in the long run, France will gain in both cases with its "voice of reason" posture.
You will lose, and lose heavily. Because once Iraq is liberated and the torture cells are opened, when the British and American soldiers are greeted like liberators, when the weapons labs are opened - you will look like total, complete and utter fools for having opposed us.
Also, there's a bilateral treaty between France and Cote d'Ivoire. It's all perfectly legal to invervene for french troops if the Ivory government gives the go-ahead. No legal need for the UN in this case.
Very convenient. Are you trying to suggest that Chirac didn't strong-arm Gbagbo? And that the Ivorians actually want you there?
Ivan
I thought that Fance was always in a state of perpetual disgrace.
Nope. Even if your troops are sincerly greeted by Iraqis, even if you open numbers of torture cells, even if you find labs filled with WMDs, the majority of western viewers will dismiss it as ludicrous and childish anglo-saxon propaganda to provide a justification a posteriori.
Very convenient. Are you trying to suggest that Chirac didn't strong-arm Gbagbo?
At the beginning, no, our troops stopped the rebels. And the primary reason was _really_ to evacuate westerners. Things have changed a little since then, but that's the nice things with crises. For those who like surprises.
And that the Ivorians actually want you there?
Yeah, like that matters.
Bless him indeed and our only true ally, Great Britain. Mrs. Thatcher must be very proud.
I hope the French know that there will be deep and significant consequences for their actions.
Right, like how Europe just dismissed the liberation of the concentration camps in World War II. Are you breathing pure air where you are, or is the Paris smog settling in your cerebral cortex?
Truth has a way of resonating on its own. How typically French of you to not care about the truth, and think that the spin placed on it is more important, and that it will in fact obscure the truth. It won't. But thanks anyway, I will recall this remark once Iraq is liberated and the pictures are broadcast across the world.
At the beginning, no, our troops stopped the rebels. And the primary reason was _really_ to evacuate westerners. Things have changed a little since then, but that's the nice things with crises. For those who like surprises.
If anything, you should NEVER have strong-armed Gbagbo. His was a legitimately elected government - your machinations diluted that authority.
Yeah, like that matters.
You are constantly telling us about how we should be sensitive to what the Arabs want, mate. Pay attention to the Ivorians before you start lecturing us.
Ivan
LOL! France will never be considered the "voice of reason" no matter how hard France tries to convince otherwise. France has taken the coward's position and has become even more irrelevant in world matters.
The good thing that will come out of this is the US will probably pull out of the UN and hopefully, will suggest that UN headquarters move to Paris. A marriage made in heaven.
I was just thinking about another Franco-Iraqi connection - de Villepin just released a book about Napoleon in which he claims Waterloo was a victory for Napoleon in every way...except that the French lost. ;) Saddam is performing the same rhetorical slight-of-hand in his talking about the Gulf War. All in all, it seems the intellectual inconsistency and incoherence is feature of both regimes. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Your definition of Westerners is rather limited to the Franco-Prussian axis. For whatever historical reasons they swing on the hinge of tyranny and appeasement without understanding that there is a third way - to behave like free men. And the hinge swings both ways in both countries. Now maybe you have decided that the 13 other European nations not aligned with the axis of weasels is not sufficiently western. Ok - but that is special pleading and a rather circular argument, a circular argument which the French and Germans have been in for about 1500 years.
You mean de Villepin writes comedy books, too?
France never met a dictator they didn't like. In this era, it's Saddam and Mugabe. And when faced with war, they surrender gracefully. But I wonder how many thousands of French Jews died because of the collaboration of the French with the Nazis? How many thousands were sent to concentration camps? Of course, the rise of anti-Semitism in France (which Chirac has denied) shows where their sentiments lie--and it's back with Hitler.
Well first, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Finland and Greece have clearly sided with France and Germany. Second, most governements in Europe which were pro-US a month ago have issued statements clearly indicating that they have decided to turn neutral (but then what should we expect from Berlusconi and the likes?). Blair and Aznar, inside the EU, are the two only real allies left, possibly with Ireland. In "New Europe", every country has now turned mute, except Bulgaria, which is forced to side since it is in the Serurity Council.
The key point is that everywhere in Europe, the public opinion is on the same side, no matter what their governments say. Actually, the french public opinion is paraoxically more moderate than Spain, Portugal, Poland and other "pro-US" countries. I mean, even Britain is more than reluctant: have you read its left papers, such as The Independent or The Guardian lately? And Blair's approval are below the ground.
We should actually make an exception our denunciation of the French; I do know some French Jews and they are strongly pro-war. One asked my mother to ask me (?!?) to find out when the next pro-war rally in Paris would be.
I said, "There aren't any".
Regards, Ivan
In the views of english-speaking conservatives, yes. Except that these views are no longer shared by anyone else.
The good thing that will come out of this is the US will probably pull out of the UN and hopefully, will suggest that UN headquarters move to Paris. A marriage made in heaven.
Not gonna happen.
And Portugal, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Ireland are siding with the USA. Also, there is virtually every former Warsaw Pact nation, plus the Baltics.
Second, most governements in Europe which were pro-US a month ago have issued statements clearly indicating that they have decided to turn neutral (but then what should we expect from Berlusconi and the likes?).
Provide evidence of this besides the voices in your head.
Blair and Aznar, inside the EU, are the two only real allies left, possibly with Ireland.
As previously shown, you are clearly wrong.
In "New Europe", every country has now turned mute, except Bulgaria, which is forced to side since it is in the Serurity Council.
Prove it. Just because they aren't reported every day means nothing; only the French would conclude that their opinion has changed in a matter of a couple of weeks.
The key point is that everywhere in Europe, the public opinion is on the same side, no matter what their governments say. Actually, the french public opinion is paraoxically more moderate than Spain, Portugal, Poland and other "pro-US" countries.
Piffle. Your polls show 80% support or greater for Chirac's position. Our polls indicate 75% support for war with a second resolution.
I mean, even Britain is more than reluctant: have you read its left papers, such as The Independent or The Guardian lately?
The Guardian and Indo are the two least read newspapers in the country. It would be like basing your ideas on the opinions of the Americans on the Washington Post.
And Blair's approval are below the ground.
Nonsense. People disapprove of Labour because the economy is weak; the polls so far as the war is concerned are coming around.
You will have to do better. Lying is not a substitute.
Ivan
Untrue, but even if it were, here's a news flash for you: WE DON'T CARE. Doing the right thing is more important to us than pleasing you.
If you're displeased, good. Chew on it. Choke on it. Gag on it for all I care. We are going to do the right thing, with or without your approval. And if we have to b**** slap your leaders every time they come up with this vomitous nonsense, we will. Taste the back of the hand, hard across the face - because what you think will not deter us from pursuing the correct course in this or any other affair.
Not gonna happen.
The fate of the UN lies in the hands of the weasel countries. Do the right thing, mean what you say, or the UN dies. Simple.
Ivan
I said, "There aren't any".
It's very dangerous for Jews in France with the rise of anti-semitism. It's fairly clear that they're no longer welcome in that country. It will not be long until France becomes the first predominately Islamic state in Europe.
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.