French Oil Contracts to be Null and Void
Too bad Pepe' Le Pew...
Posted on 01/27/2003 2:52:11 AM PST by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - France's opposition to a possible U.N.-approved attack on Iraq is basically unilateralist and demonstrates a hollow commitment to Iraqis' human rights, pro-war security analysts said Friday.
As President Bush continued a U.S. buildup of troops in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible strike against Iraq, France came in for especially harsh criticism for hinting it might use its veto power on the Security Council to thwart a possible resolution authorizing force to get Iraq to comply with demands that it reveal its weapons programs.
"What France essentially is saying is that it's going to take a unilateralist stance against the international will. This is emboldening Saddam Hussein to continue his deceit and denial that he has weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a national security analyst with the Heritage Foundation.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on Jan. 20 voiced his country's opposition to military action, saying, "If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end."
Analysts also accused the Europeans of acting out of self-interest after signing contracts with Saddam Hussein for access to Iraqi oilfields.
"People say that the United States is in this for the oil. I think it looks more like the French and the Russians and the Germans are more in it for the oil. They have guaranteed access to oil under the Saddam Hussein regime," Spencer said.
Iraq's European oil customers are essentially willing to trade weapons of mass destruction for oil, Spencer said.
"That's not the way the argument is normally framed, but that's the reality of the situation," he said.
Michael Waller, vice president of the Center for Security Policy, said opposition by France and Germany to the option to use force to get Saddam Hussein to disarm "shows how hollow Europe's commitment to human rights really is."
Waller also criticized European countries for refusing to join U.S. opposition to the election of Libya on Monday to chair this year's session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
"Saddam Hussein has basically paid off the French and the Germans with his oil contracts, and they want to do everything to preserve them," Waller said.
"When you hear these Saddam Hussein apologists saying this is a war for oil - no, it's not a war for American oil, it's a war for French and German oil," he said.
Britain, Spain and other European allies probably would support the United States if it decided to use force to disarm Iraq. However, opposition by France and Germany, founding members of the European Union, is resulting in a further cooling of U.S.-European ties already strained by disputes on such thorny issues as steel imports, global warming and the International Criminal Court.
Last weekend, thousands of Europeans took part in anti-war protests, and more demonstrations are planned this week during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.
Opinion polls show opposition to war with Iraq to be as high as 70 percent in France and Germany.
In a rapidly changing situation, however, the analysts predicted European public opinion would change more in President Bush's favor as he presents evidence of Iraq's weapons arsenals.
Spencer said Bush was unlikely to reveal evidence against Saddam Hussein until hostilities began in order to protect his sources, but that the evidence could be shared with France and Germany before that.
Predictions that the Arab street will rise if the United States attacks Iraq is a "scare tactic" already proven false after hostilities began in Afghanistan, Spencer said.
Spencer stressed, however, that he still considers France and Germany "good American friends and allies. They are countries we will work with in the future, and I think they're countries we will work with in resolving the Iraq situation."
In making a case for war, Bush or Secretary of State Colin Powell likely will make a convincing speech similar to the one Bush made to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, laying out the need for the international community to address the Iraq situation, Spencer said.
On Monday, Hans Blix, the lead U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, is scheduled to present a progress report on his search for weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council.
The report is expected to acknowledge that inspectors have not found conclusive evidence Iraq possesses such weapons, but it will cite Iraq for failing to fully cooperate with the inspectors.
The U.N. resolution authorizing the inspections calls for "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.
E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Who cares. They are not a party to it on either side.
Jack, France and all the other fence-sitters could be easily brought on board with the production of proof of the existence of Iraqi WMD. All we have at this point is reams of hot air, and a few aluminium tubes and antiquated empty chem shells. And the result of the failure to produce anything but bellicose war-talk is falling domestic support for the war, a tanking economy and a resurgent Left- who, only six months ago, were leaderless and issue-less. Why the Heritage Foundation and other right-side think tanks have imprinted on this crazy war fiesta like a fledgling goose is beyond the understanding of any thinking conservative. The buck is right on the President's desk, now. Put up, or shut up on Iraq, Mr Bush. And as for the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups who have irrationally nailed their colours to this administration's mast, think again. The fight against liberalism and the Dems must not be sidelined into supporting one president's egomania.
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.