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.
This will not be forgotten any time soon.
I watched it, and I didn't see the "rage" myself. I saw that prissy little ba**ard just sitting there with a "Hmmmmpphh!!" look on his face, mixed with embarrassment (and rightfully so; he came across as an idiot and Straw called him on it BIG time).
We've been to coastal Maine in summer, but sans boat (it was in the early 90's & I still dream wistfully about lobster pounds)...but when our big catamaran is done, it's going to be one of our primo destinations. A number of the full-time and part-time cruisers we've met spend the winter in Florida or the Bahamas and summer in Maine with stops in the Chesapeake on the way down and back up the ICW. It's a lovely lifestyle.
If we were to do more foreign travel, I certainly would go to a country that appreciates the United States, not one that is hostile towards us or our interests.
I am painstakingly pointing out to you something which you refuse to understand - for you to claim that anti-Semitism is not a problem in France, not only flies in the face of recent events, including record numbers of French Jews going to Israel, it goes against the deep rooted history of anti-Semitism in France. For you to somehow suggest that is magically "not a big problem", is disingenuous to say the least.
At any rate, your comments on this thread have exposed you as a coward, a poseur, a liar, and a fraud. Really, you could not do any better than what you've been doing to prove what we English have had to say about your country all along. For that, I thank you.
Ivan
About 8-9 years ago, my #3 sis spent a month in England and took a side trip to Paris. She couldn't get out of France fast enough--the people were hostile and arrogrant towards her and mocked her when she couldn't speak French good enough for them. Instead of a week, she spend three miserable days. She'd never go back.
In short, you neither have the resources, nor the ability to refute anything FrontPage has to say. Rather, you'll "play the man instead of the ball" - i.e., attack the publication, rather than what it has to say.
That tactic may work in French academic debates, but not here.
Ivan
You do understand that this is a conservative forum, don't you? This isn't DU, a place that better fits you, or even better, "Socialists R Us."
Mr. President, it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell.
When Mr. Straw said that, it was electrifying. So simple, so obvious. First I got goosebumps, then I cheered. This should be our rallying cry: The truth takes only seconds to tell.
Idyllic.
You had to mention lobster pounds, didn't you?!
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.