Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Gathering Storm II:
Another French Twist
Is Paris playing Colin Powell for a fool again?
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was mighty peeved when the French opposed a U.N. resolution to support war in Iraq after he'd told President Bush they would not. Now that President Bush is seeking a new U.N. resolution for post-Saddam Iraq, we're soon going to see if the French have fooled Mr. Powell again.
The Secretary has assured Mr. Bush that this time he can get the U.N. resolution, and it is true that many nations now seem cooperative. That includes the Chinese and notably the Russians, as well as the U.N. Secretary General himself, Kofi Annan. The August truck-bombing of the U.N. mission in Baghdad seems to have jolted Mr. Annan into recognition that terrorism isn't merely an American problem.
An August 28 internal Pentagon memo to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted that "State has proposed" U.N. Security Council resolution "language that would 'authorize' a stability force in Iraq--under our command--and call on member states to join it. We think this is good language and we seek your approval."
The memo, written by Assistant Secretary Peter Rodman, added that "State thinks the language will work in New York. It echoes the UNSCR which the French obtained to endorse their intervention in the Ivory Coast in February!" Mr. Rumsfeld initialed his approval.
Far from approving the State Department language at the U.N., however, the French have so far rejected Mr. Powell's draft. First they insisted that the Coalition Provisional Authority be turned over to the U.N., an idea the U.S. rejected. Then, during this weekend's talks, the French turned to insisting that decision-making power in Iraq be turned over within weeks to the Iraqi Governing Council.
This sudden French insistence on Iraqi self-rule is touching given their opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. And surely the French know that no one wants to turn authority over to Iraqis more than the U.S. does, as soon as they are ready. The ploy is so transparently cynical that it suggests the French goal is to find some excuse, any excuse, to draw out negotiations as long as possible, or to gain as many commercial concessions as possible for French companies.
Mr. Powell put his best spin on the failed weekend talks, but the more important question is how long he will let the French play this game. How much time does anyone really need to work out these details? The U.S. will continue to bear the vast majority of the burden--human and financial--for rebuilding Iraq no matter what the U.N. does.
If the goal here is really to confer some U.N. imprimatur on the postwar rebuilding of Iraq, then let's get on with it. The French don't have the troops to help much anyway, and we doubt they'll be contributing much cash. Mr. Bush wants the U.N. endorsement so the Turks, the Indians and perhaps other countries can use it as a fig leaf to justify their own troop contributions. We shouldn't have to indulge French mischief to get that permission.
Mr. Powell--and the U.S.--ought simply to give the French a deadline to declare their support or opposition. Then present a resolution to the U.N. Security Council and dare the French to veto it. If they won't accept language for Iraq similar to what they received for their little incursion in Ivory Coast earlier this year, then the world will see French anti-Americanism for what it clearly is.
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Another French Twist
Is Paris playing Colin Powell for a fool again?
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was mighty peeved when the French opposed a U.N. resolution to support war in Iraq after he'd told President Bush they would not. Now that President Bush is seeking a new U.N. resolution for post-Saddam Iraq, we're soon going to see if the French have fooled Mr. Powell again.
The Secretary has assured Mr. Bush that this time he can get the U.N. resolution, and it is true that many nations now seem cooperative. That includes the Chinese and notably the Russians, as well as the U.N. Secretary General himself, Kofi Annan. The August truck-bombing of the U.N. mission in Baghdad seems to have jolted Mr. Annan into recognition that terrorism isn't merely an American problem.
An August 28 internal Pentagon memo to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted that "State has proposed" U.N. Security Council resolution "language that would 'authorize' a stability force in Iraq--under our command--and call on member states to join it. We think this is good language and we seek your approval."
The memo, written by Assistant Secretary Peter Rodman, added that "State thinks the language will work in New York. It echoes the UNSCR which the French obtained to endorse their intervention in the Ivory Coast in February!" Mr. Rumsfeld initialed his approval.
Far from approving the State Department language at the U.N., however, the French have so far rejected Mr. Powell's draft. First they insisted that the Coalition Provisional Authority be turned over to the U.N., an idea the U.S. rejected. Then, during this weekend's talks, the French turned to insisting that decision-making power in Iraq be turned over within weeks to the Iraqi Governing Council.
This sudden French insistence on Iraqi self-rule is touching given their opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. And surely the French know that no one wants to turn authority over to Iraqis more than the U.S. does, as soon as they are ready. The ploy is so transparently cynical that it suggests the French goal is to find some excuse, any excuse, to draw out negotiations as long as possible, or to gain as many commercial concessions as possible for French companies.
Mr. Powell put his best spin on the failed weekend talks, but the more important question is how long he will let the French play this game. How much time does anyone really need to work out these details? The U.S. will continue to bear the vast majority of the burden--human and financial--for rebuilding Iraq no matter what the U.N. does.
If the goal here is really to confer some U.N. imprimatur on the postwar rebuilding of Iraq, then let's get on with it. The French don't have the troops to help much anyway, and we doubt they'll be contributing much cash. Mr. Bush wants the U.N. endorsement so the Turks, the Indians and perhaps other countries can use it as a fig leaf to justify their own troop contributions. We shouldn't have to indulge French mischief to get that permission.
Mr. Powell--and the U.S.--ought simply to give the French a deadline to declare their support or opposition. Then present a resolution to the U.N. Security Council and dare the French to veto it. If they won't accept language for Iraq similar to what they received for their little incursion in Ivory Coast earlier this year, then the world will see French anti-Americanism for what it clearly is.
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments:
Post a Comment
