main page
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
|
click here for a bigger sunset
One small voice in the proud tradition of FreeBlogging*
Thursday, February 13, 2003
posted by gbarto at 1:53 AM:
Here are your French news headlines:Le Monde: Prohibited Missiles Discovered in Iraq. The French New York Times notes that its journalistic cousins across the channel are taking this as material breech and predicting it will be enough for the balance to tip in favor of war.
And here is an article called Questions on the Franco-American fracture. Among the questions:Les relations franco-américaines sont-elles en voie de détérioration durable ?
Are Franco-American relations headed for enduring deterioration?
Therese Delpech (researcher for the French Center For International Research and Study): Franco-American relations have never been simple, but they're becoming execrable. You only need read the papers on both sides of the Atlantic to be convinced of this. This reality and the consequences that flow from it are, to my thinking, underestimated in France. After the great success of the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, to which France had usefully contributed, there was a period of detente. The true point of departure of this new drama too place in New York with the threat of a French veto that literally rejected Colin Powell as part of the camp of "hardliners" in Washington. Was this necessary? And who believes the French will veto? The stated desire of Washington to make France bend to its will isn't contributing to a calm debate between the two countries either.
Pierre Lellouche (UMP deputy and president of the parliamentary assembly of NATO): Everything depends on the dynamics in play. French military participation in a war against Iraq seems heretofore excluded. So, use the veto? I know that all the left, the Greens, the National Front [Le Pen's isolationist, anti-immigrant party - ndTB] and part of the UMP [Chirac's party] want France to use its veto. I'm opposed because that would have considerable consequences. First, a French veto wouldn't stop the US from going to war: they'll do it within the framework of resolution 1441. Thus, a veto would considerably weaken the Security Council and would create a very grave precedent. I'm just back from Washington: the Americans explain that if there's a French veto, then they will push for a reform of the Security Council, changing France's seat into a seat for the European Union. Finally, the reprisals would be immediate: One the economic front, France would be pulled off the rebuilding of Iraq and the new geopolitical deals.
Richard Holbrooke: Franco-American relations have known their highs and their lows over the last 200 years. But we have a common civilization and common values: the ties that bind us are stronger than our differences. This doesn't mean that in this moment both Washington and Paris don't have to calm down. We have a common problem in Iraq, and the United States will advance with other countries. If the French don't want to be among them, that's their sovereign right. But I think it's a mistake, because Saddam Hussein is a threat to the stability of our common space. France also made a mistake in undermining the coalition. This can only encourage Saddam. I'd add, however, that the American government has made the problem more difficult with its manner of directing its relations within the Alliance.
Guillaume Parmentier (French Center on the US): The crisis of confidence is real and all the more so since we're coming out of a period of rapprochement: Dominique de Villepin and Colin Powell had cooperated in a very careful manner from May 2002 to January 2003, and France had brought welcome support when to Mr. Powell and to the moderates in the Bush administration when the decision was made to use the UN rather than attacking Iraq unilaterally. Today, the French have the sentiment that the US used the UN to attract the good wishes of a certain number of countries, without however wanting to submit to international controls. One sees the proof of this in that the concentration of American military forces in the Gulf is now presented in Washington as meaning war is inevitable. The Americans, themselves, have the impression that the French made them believe they really cared about disarming Iraq in order to bring them to the UN, with the real goal of preventing recourse to force. This feeling is widespread among the elites and in American circles of influence; the press has been unleashed against our country. A poll taken this week shows that the image of France has greatly deteriorated in the US. This trend will be difficult [to reverse], at least quickly.
Le Figaro leads with How the World Judges France's Position. Le Figaro does its level best to present France as a country with supporters as well as detractors, but one sense we wouldn't be seeing this article if they weren't nervous in Paris.
Libé leads with The sounds of boots bring the economy to a stop. France, too, is not having a great time waiting to see what will happen in Iraq, even if they're unlikely to be there.
* * *
French Elections, 1st round
Second round special page
Second Round Results Map
The TurkeyBlog main page contains only the 20 most recent entries.
To go further back, check the archive in the right hand bar.
