Blair turns fury on French for wrecking Iraqi compromise

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 14, 2003 | Toby Helm

[MadIvan]

Tony Blair declared diplomatic war on France yesterday, accusing President Chirac of trying to destroy his efforts to win majority support in the United Nations for war on Iraq.

In an extraordinary move that risks inflicting long-term damage on Anglo-French relations, Downing Street accused the French of "poisoning" the entire diplomatic process with its pledge to veto a second UN resolution.

Last night, after France had come under sustained attack from London and Washington, Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, attempted to cool the row, insisting that his country wanted to achieve a consensus in the Security Council.

Sounding more emollient and conciliatory, he said: "Everything should be done to preserve the unity of the council, and that is what we are working toward. France confirms its openness to seize all opportunities." But there was no indication that Paris would lift its threat to wield its Security Council veto.

The decision by Downing Street to mount a concerted anti-French assault formed part of a desperate attempt by Mr Blair to rally support for his strategy in the Labour Party, the country and the UN.

The idea was to portray its leaders as bent on wrecking a deal that Downing Street says could well have won the backing of most members of the Security Council.

While the anti-French offensive was applauded by many MPs, its long-term implications were not lost on British diplomats who feared that permanent harm could be done to the Prime Minister's efforts to place Britain alongside France and Germany as a lead player in the EU.

One Labour MP said yesterday that Mr Blair was personally spreading his anti-Chirac message in meetings with his own backbenchers.

"The strategy is to target bomb the French," said one MP "telling everyone that without them he would have got the second resolution. His message is that we would have had 10 countries [a majority of the UN Security Council] without the French.

"This approach also helps him counter the impression that he is just an American poodle, following Bush to war while most of the rest of the UN is opposed."

The Prime Minister's official spokesman used unusually tough language to denounce M Chirac's stance.

"I don't think anyone is under any illusion that if you inject into the diplomatic bloodstream a strategic, in principle veto then that's going to poison the system and present very real difficulties," he said.

Britain's plan that Saddam Hussein should have to pass six tests to show full compliance had been rejected out of hand by Paris even before Iraq had denounced it.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said he found France's behaviour "extraordinary". He added: "Whatever the difficulties we face - and particularly the kind of statements which we are hearing from across the Channel - we will continue to work for this peaceful end."

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, said France's pledge to veto represented "an unreasonable blockage on the course of international agreement". Similar efforts to isolate the French were being made in Washington.

One ally of the Prime Minister admitted that if he remained in Downing Street after the crisis he would face a huge task in rebuilding relations not just with Paris but the EU as a whole.

In particular, he said, the row could seriously affect Mr Blair's willingness to do deals with the French on the convention on the future of Europe, being chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president.

Similarly, British diplomats are worried that a deep rift with Paris may cause severe difficulties to future efforts by Mr Blair to take Britain into the European single currency.

Paris would have a big say over the terms of British entry, including the question of whether it would have to serve a two-year period inside the Exchange Rate Mechanism beforehand, as required under the Maastricht Treaty.

[CFC__VRWC]

While the anti-French offensive was applauded by many MPs, its long-term implications were not lost on British diplomats who feared that permanent harm could be done to the Prime Minister's efforts to place Britain alongside France and Germany as a lead player in the EU.

Obviously these diplomats fail to realize that this is a battle that would have been fought at some time in the future, if the Iraq issue hadn't come along to force it now. Your diplomatic corps in many ways reminds me of our State Department, which proves, I guess, that diplomats are pretty much the same the world over.

M. Chirac may have unwittingly done the British people an enormous favor by making them take a good hard look at what life as a full EU member would be like, before they join up and find it that much harder to extricate themselves once they find out they've been sold the sow's ear.

[CharacterCounts]

I think the deal was the permanent five were to consist of those nations which actively opposed the Axis powers in WWII.

[Enduring Freedom]

Canada has been historically a place of refuge for Americans.

However, it is now a bastion of Socialists and Liberals.

The cheese-eating surrender monkey syndrome has struck the Canucks.

From CNN to Hollyfake to 'Rats to Carter to Clinton, is there any wonder why the propaganda is working?

[George W. Bush]

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic but does anybody know the history of how the French even managed to get on the Security Council?

Basically, it was a pity-party.

France, having lost its colonial empire, was wailing it would go communist if national pride and some wealth wasn't restored.

So everyone pretended they did something meaningful in their own liberation and that of Europe in general and so they were a victorious "ally" instead of a pack of weaklings who collaborated with Hitler and helped him to destroy France's Jews. After the war, they got a main seat in NATO from which they tried to destroy NATO in less than 20 years. To rebuild them and Germany, we instituted the Marshall plan and we even gave them a Security Council veto and pretended they were still a Great Power. Then, since they still felt puny and neglected, we paid 85% of their costs and transported nearly their entire army to Indochina to wage their Vietnam war. They came to beg us to use nuclear weapons to save their sorry frog-butts at Dien Bien Phu but Eisenhower said no because we couldn't use nukes on Asians twice in less than 15 years (to put it briefly).

In short, lots of the French behaving like fallen and neglected women who feel entitled to a throne. The French can't feel good about themselves unless they find someone to look down upon and scorn. They've nominated Blair and Bush for this role but it's not going to work this time. They're going to instead learn they've been nothing but a charity case for the last 65 years and we're going to hit them in the oil revenues and freeze them out diplomatically. After we use New Europe to split off Germany, they'll be much quieter for quite a while.

[George W. Bush]

Both Bush and Blair will make token efforts to include France in the policing of Iraq after the war.

I don't think so. They've gone too far. It's like Helen Thomas calling Bush the worst president in American history. Her and the WashPost and Slimes and libmedia outlets aren't going to get any White House favors.

W. is very tolerant but will hold a grudge after enough nastiness. Like a wicked child, France demands discipline. Besides, we cannot be seen to reward such active enmity to our policies. Not in the opening phase of the Bush Doctrine era.

[CrimeOf73]

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic but does anybody know the history of how the French even managed to get on the Security Council?

In a nutshell...

The core of the UN security council consists of the victors of WWII: the US, the UK and the USSR.

At the 1945 Yalta conference, possibly as part of the compensation given to the French for German aggression, Churchill and Roosevelt pushed for the French to be given a piece of occupied Germany -- a so-called zone.

Since the nascent UN was tasked with temporarily overseeing occupied Germany, it was thought that France should have a say in the governance of its German zone. Therefore, France was given a seat on the Security Council.

As I understand it, Churchill was a major supporter of the French and was critical in fighting for its post-war influence. I believe Churchill felt that France could somehow be restored to its "great power" status and would help to counterbalance the Soviet Union, which had just swallowed up a large chunk of Europe.

Anyone else?

[CharacterCounts]

The only thing we disagree on is wether there will be some type of diplomatic tokenism. Chiraq stupidly put all his eggs in one basket on this gambit he could no have won.

My theory is that Bush will move to isolate France but provide the tokenism to avoid providing an election topic for the Dems.

[George W. Bush]

My theory is that Bush will move to isolate France but provide the tokenism to avoid providing an election topic for the Dems.

I don't see it. The entire aircraft and agriculture sectors already hate France's protectionism and the trade unions don't like them either. Or the vets organizations. Or, well, just about anybody.

I don't think that even the Dims are dumb enough to champion the French cause.

I think Dubya will quietly put the boots to them. They had their chance and decided to play the enemy. They've demanded a public flogging.

[CharacterCounts]

I hope you are correct. Your scenario would be more fun to watch than mine.

[Grampa Dave]

WATCH CLOSELY TO SEE WHY CHIRAQ LOVES SODDOMITE!

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Well as General Patton once said:

" I would rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one behind me."