Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
France Is No Longer NATO Partner
As UPI news agency reported, Richard Perle, an adviser to the Pentagon, released a very scandalous statement during his speech at a press briefing in New York. This statement will make the relations between the USA and France get even worse. Richard Perle claimed that France was no longer an ally of the United States and NATO.
16:51 2003-02-05
France Is No Longer NATO Partner
Americans are really unhappy about Germany’s and France’s refusal to approve the Iraq campaign
The Pentagon struck France out form the list of USA’s allies. The closer the war in Iraq is, the less patient the White House gets. American officials keep expressing their indignation about the stand of their NATO allies – Germany and France, first and foremost. This indignation is set out more and more often. Diplomatic decencies are not observed anymore – they do not pay any attention to them. The squabble between Washington on one part and Paris and Berlin on the other part get rougher and rougher.
As UPI news agency reported, Richard Perle, an adviser to the Pentagon, released a very scandalous statement during his speech at a press briefing in New York. This statement will make the relations between the USA and France get even worse. Richard Perle claimed that France was no longer an ally of the United States and NATO. Now the alliance will have to elaborate a strategy to restrain the former ally, as if the alliance is going to fall apart over to the French negative attitude regarding Iraq.
Germany’s position regarding the USA’s intentions about Iraq does not differ a lot from the one that France has. However, Perle only said that Germany's refusal to back the military operation in Iraq is nothing but a mistake, which was made by the discredited German chancellor. The French stand seems much more important to America, for French President Jacques Chirac is allegedly certain deep in his heart that Saddam Hussein is a lot better than any of his successors. Perle claimed that France wants to diminish the USA’s role in the world with its position to denounce any military action that is not approved with a special resolution from the United Nations.
As a matter of fact, Richard Perle should have some experience of a psychoanalyst, not a Pentagon advisor, since he knows so much about the French president's heart. Being serious, Perle formulated the idea, which has been wandering in the minds of the White House officials for long. If an international organization becomes an obstacle on the USA’s way to implement its plans, America will simply stop paying attention to it. To put it short, the United States will ignore it, even if this international organization is NATO.
It is not hard to understand the indignation of the White House. The alliance makes decisions on the joint basis, with the participation of its every member. If two countries (such respectable countries as France and Germany) say no to the war in Iraq, NATO will not be able to send its soldiers to the Persian Gulf. However, it seems that other members’ opinion is not really relevant for the USA and Great Britain. Washington’s attempts to make Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder support the war in Iraq were over with nothing. On the other hand, all other NATO members expressed their intention to back the military operation in Iraq. It is Paris and Berlin that undermine the picture of freedom-loving people’s unity against malicious Saddam.
This way or other, but the Iraqi issue has become a big test for NATO. Time will show, what will happen to the alliance after this test ends. Most likely, the USA will manage to show it to everyone that alliance is nothing without the American support. The United States is likely to prove that it is too much for a NATO country member to have an opinion that differs from the one of Washington.
Oleg Artyukov
PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
Copyright ©2003 by "Pravda.RU".
France Is No Longer NATO Partner
Americans are really unhappy about Germany’s and France’s refusal to approve the Iraq campaign
The Pentagon struck France out form the list of USA’s allies. The closer the war in Iraq is, the less patient the White House gets. American officials keep expressing their indignation about the stand of their NATO allies – Germany and France, first and foremost. This indignation is set out more and more often. Diplomatic decencies are not observed anymore – they do not pay any attention to them. The squabble between Washington on one part and Paris and Berlin on the other part get rougher and rougher.
As UPI news agency reported, Richard Perle, an adviser to the Pentagon, released a very scandalous statement during his speech at a press briefing in New York. This statement will make the relations between the USA and France get even worse. Richard Perle claimed that France was no longer an ally of the United States and NATO. Now the alliance will have to elaborate a strategy to restrain the former ally, as if the alliance is going to fall apart over to the French negative attitude regarding Iraq.
Germany’s position regarding the USA’s intentions about Iraq does not differ a lot from the one that France has. However, Perle only said that Germany's refusal to back the military operation in Iraq is nothing but a mistake, which was made by the discredited German chancellor. The French stand seems much more important to America, for French President Jacques Chirac is allegedly certain deep in his heart that Saddam Hussein is a lot better than any of his successors. Perle claimed that France wants to diminish the USA’s role in the world with its position to denounce any military action that is not approved with a special resolution from the United Nations.
As a matter of fact, Richard Perle should have some experience of a psychoanalyst, not a Pentagon advisor, since he knows so much about the French president's heart. Being serious, Perle formulated the idea, which has been wandering in the minds of the White House officials for long. If an international organization becomes an obstacle on the USA’s way to implement its plans, America will simply stop paying attention to it. To put it short, the United States will ignore it, even if this international organization is NATO.
It is not hard to understand the indignation of the White House. The alliance makes decisions on the joint basis, with the participation of its every member. If two countries (such respectable countries as France and Germany) say no to the war in Iraq, NATO will not be able to send its soldiers to the Persian Gulf. However, it seems that other members’ opinion is not really relevant for the USA and Great Britain. Washington’s attempts to make Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder support the war in Iraq were over with nothing. On the other hand, all other NATO members expressed their intention to back the military operation in Iraq. It is Paris and Berlin that undermine the picture of freedom-loving people’s unity against malicious Saddam.
This way or other, but the Iraqi issue has become a big test for NATO. Time will show, what will happen to the alliance after this test ends. Most likely, the USA will manage to show it to everyone that alliance is nothing without the American support. The United States is likely to prove that it is too much for a NATO country member to have an opinion that differs from the one of Washington.
Oleg Artyukov
PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
Copyright ©2003 by "Pravda.RU".
For more information:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/02/05/4...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I have been reading an on line discussion of mainly North Americans about this France- Germany issue.
It amazes me how upset and shocked so many ordinary Americans are that France and Germany have a mind of their own. This really worries me. The only thing I can guess is that it reveals a very highly over developed sense of their own righteousness, rightness and right to rule without question or challenge. They are a big worry for the worlds future. NO WONDER THEY GOT A PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH!
It amazes me how upset and shocked so many ordinary Americans are that France and Germany have a mind of their own. This really worries me. The only thing I can guess is that it reveals a very highly over developed sense of their own righteousness, rightness and right to rule without question or challenge. They are a big worry for the worlds future. NO WONDER THEY GOT A PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH!
"Richard Perle, an adviser to the Pentagon"
should read "Richard Perle a spy for Israel"
He was investigated in 1980s for possible ties to the Israeli espionage case involving Jonathan Jay Pollard.
"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy"
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:mERd1nijOdIC:http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/org
anizations/foreignpolicy/defense_policy_board.htm+%22Richard+Perle+%22,+Jackson+,
+espionage+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
should read "Richard Perle a spy for Israel"
He was investigated in 1980s for possible ties to the Israeli espionage case involving Jonathan Jay Pollard.
"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy"
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:mERd1nijOdIC:http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/org
anizations/foreignpolicy/defense_policy_board.htm+%22Richard+Perle+%22,+Jackson+,
+espionage+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
France is of no consiquence. The last notable military movement performed by France was in the late 30's/early 40's when they rounded up German Jews and loaded them back on trains headed for Berlin.
Bit of a short term memory haven't you? It really wasn't so very long ago that the likes of Reagan and Rumsfeld were propping up Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.
The French and Germans may have many reasons for their stance, but the fact is *very* few in the EU, including Britain, believe that there is any just case for war. So at least French and German governments are listening to their voters.
The evidence presented has been deeply unconvincing, and at least some of it now shown to be falsified by Blair. Few here believe that this war is more than either a grab for US control of oil, and/or a convenient distraction for Bush from Enron, his inability to catch Bin Laden, his need to be seen to do something - anything - after September 11, etc. In Britain at least 70% are opposed to this war, prabably higher.
If this war is really about liberation of the Iraqi people, why not first liberate a few countries where there is much less reason to suspect US motives? How about Burma for starters - that's got a really nasty regime. How about any number of African states? Bullshit so blatent that it's beyond contempt.
By general consent, North Korea is a far bigger threat, and known to sell weapons to pretty much anyone with the cash. So why not deal with them first, and again avoid all the suspicions?
Because the suspicions are spot on, I suggest.
You could easily control any small threat from Saddam by a continuation of the policy since the first Gulf War - surveillance and the odd bit of targeted bombing.
The French and Germans may have many reasons for their stance, but the fact is *very* few in the EU, including Britain, believe that there is any just case for war. So at least French and German governments are listening to their voters.
The evidence presented has been deeply unconvincing, and at least some of it now shown to be falsified by Blair. Few here believe that this war is more than either a grab for US control of oil, and/or a convenient distraction for Bush from Enron, his inability to catch Bin Laden, his need to be seen to do something - anything - after September 11, etc. In Britain at least 70% are opposed to this war, prabably higher.
If this war is really about liberation of the Iraqi people, why not first liberate a few countries where there is much less reason to suspect US motives? How about Burma for starters - that's got a really nasty regime. How about any number of African states? Bullshit so blatent that it's beyond contempt.
By general consent, North Korea is a far bigger threat, and known to sell weapons to pretty much anyone with the cash. So why not deal with them first, and again avoid all the suspicions?
Because the suspicions are spot on, I suggest.
You could easily control any small threat from Saddam by a continuation of the policy since the first Gulf War - surveillance and the odd bit of targeted bombing.
Wow, I'm impressed by that what's been stated by "Mr." He's got basic acknowledges and a great rhetorical style. I'm impressed - should go for journalism!!!
ya know I saw some research that suggested by a factor of 13-1 It was France who was supplying Iraq with more weapons than the US.
hmm oh yeah and that nuclear plant as well..
ahh those frogs
So shall we just say France proped up Iraq and leave it at that? (Russia and china were also involved by we wont say anything about that)...
hmm oh yeah and that nuclear plant as well..
ahh those frogs
So shall we just say France proped up Iraq and leave it at that? (Russia and china were also involved by we wont say anything about that)...
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.
The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
...
On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." The directive does not suggest that "condemning" chemical warfare required any hesitation about or modification of U.S. support for Iraq.
A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons after a November 1983 demarche from the U.S., but had resumed their use in February 1984. On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz. When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that "the U.S. analysis of the war's threat to regional stability is 'in agreement in principle' with Iraq's," and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. He said that "Iraq's superiority in weaponry" assured Iraq's defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, "remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq's defense;" Tariq Aziz had to agree
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
...
On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." The directive does not suggest that "condemning" chemical warfare required any hesitation about or modification of U.S. support for Iraq.
A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons after a November 1983 demarche from the U.S., but had resumed their use in February 1984. On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz. When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that "the U.S. analysis of the war's threat to regional stability is 'in agreement in principle' with Iraq's," and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. He said that "Iraq's superiority in weaponry" assured Iraq's defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, "remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq's defense;" Tariq Aziz had to agree
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
I like the part where Rummy and Hussein are on the same love seat and Rummy is looking all coy trying not to look like hes flirting...
Rightio
the sumamry of that seems to be that the US proped up iraq financially and politically (with the idea that Iran conquoring Iraq would be a bad idea).
France and russia and china (at different times i guess) proped it up militarily with weapons, some of which were origionally manufactured in the USA. (presumably with the idea that they could make a buck or two out of it.)
Hmm I didnt know that Iraq was that close to total defeat....
I guess we could have let iran take iraq... but it is debatable whether that would have helped anyone.
the sumamry of that seems to be that the US proped up iraq financially and politically (with the idea that Iran conquoring Iraq would be a bad idea).
France and russia and china (at different times i guess) proped it up militarily with weapons, some of which were origionally manufactured in the USA. (presumably with the idea that they could make a buck or two out of it.)
Hmm I didnt know that Iraq was that close to total defeat....
I guess we could have let iran take iraq... but it is debatable whether that would have helped anyone.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network