Thursday, March 13, 2003
10:51 pm
Entente Cordiale? - 13th March 2003, 22.50
How will the relationship between Britain and France change under the pressures of the Iraqi crisis?
We are already aware that France has acquired an unpopular reputation in the United States and has destroyed any amity that the present Republican leadership extended to their country. A balanced article in Insight magazine by Kenneth R Timmerman explores that subject.
Unlike, the United States, Britain, or more precisely, Blair has championed the United Nations route in order to gain a (supposed) legal and moral foundation for an invasion of Iraq through a vote on the United Nations Security Council. This diplomatic strategy had two advantages: it agreed with Blair's beliefs in collective security and it would allow a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party to support the government.
However, the adamant decision of France to veto any vote, no matter what the outcome or the evidence, has undermined Blair's political dominance in the United Kingdom and has undermined his arguments that the United Nations was the most useful tool for promoting collective security in the West. From De Villepin's statement that France was working towards a "framework for inspections with a work program and a precise calendar", it is clear that the 'six tests' added to the new resolution were structured as a compromise by drawing upon the French proposal and providing a more amenable alternative for the undecided. They may even have been structured as a compromise for the French and with communication from their UN diplomats.
Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, used intemperate language in responding to the French 'Non', a mixture of exasperation and certainty that war is all but upon us. Here it is in full:
"What I however find extraordinary is that without even proper consideration the French Government decided they will reject these proposals adding to the statement that whatever the circumstances France will vote no. When we negotiated resolution 1441 we not only placed obligations and responsibilities on Saddam Hussein but we also placed obligations and responsibilities on members of the security council as well. And those obligations were to see through the process of disarmament – hopefully something we continue to pray for by peaceful means. But if not that that would have to happen by way of what the resolution called serious consequence – which everybody knew meant, sadly, the use of force. What we are seeking to do is by this suggestion, these proposals of these tests, to ensure that even at this late stage there is a means by which Saddam can show reasonably that he is coming in to compliance with his obligations going back to 1991. And 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. But I have to say, such statements rejecting the obligations on all of us, obviously make that process more difficult."
Both Blair and Straw view the international community with the same communitarian spirit that they have applied to civil society. They view France as an anti-social neighbour who is increasing the insecurity of the community and, in their eyes, the gallic cock should be served with some form of restraining order. The disillusionment of the Blair administration with the current global institutions may well lead them down radical paths in their desire to collectivise security around the globe and they may find fellow travellers in the neo-conservatives of the New American Century. Needless to say, the French are at the height of their influence and it is just about to fizzle out unless they drop troops in Baghdad itself (and they are so inflated by their influence that I wouldn't put such a catastrophic misjudgement past them).
But America should be warned: they may not wish to establish an empire but Britain's leaders may see the Pax Americana as the solid foundation for a future international order.
How will the relationship between Britain and France change under the pressures of the Iraqi crisis?
We are already aware that France has acquired an unpopular reputation in the United States and has destroyed any amity that the present Republican leadership extended to their country. A balanced article in Insight magazine by Kenneth R Timmerman explores that subject.
Unlike, the United States, Britain, or more precisely, Blair has championed the United Nations route in order to gain a (supposed) legal and moral foundation for an invasion of Iraq through a vote on the United Nations Security Council. This diplomatic strategy had two advantages: it agreed with Blair's beliefs in collective security and it would allow a majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party to support the government.
However, the adamant decision of France to veto any vote, no matter what the outcome or the evidence, has undermined Blair's political dominance in the United Kingdom and has undermined his arguments that the United Nations was the most useful tool for promoting collective security in the West. From De Villepin's statement that France was working towards a "framework for inspections with a work program and a precise calendar", it is clear that the 'six tests' added to the new resolution were structured as a compromise by drawing upon the French proposal and providing a more amenable alternative for the undecided. They may even have been structured as a compromise for the French and with communication from their UN diplomats.
Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, used intemperate language in responding to the French 'Non', a mixture of exasperation and certainty that war is all but upon us. Here it is in full:
"What I however find extraordinary is that without even proper consideration the French Government decided they will reject these proposals adding to the statement that whatever the circumstances France will vote no. When we negotiated resolution 1441 we not only placed obligations and responsibilities on Saddam Hussein but we also placed obligations and responsibilities on members of the security council as well. And those obligations were to see through the process of disarmament – hopefully something we continue to pray for by peaceful means. But if not that that would have to happen by way of what the resolution called serious consequence – which everybody knew meant, sadly, the use of force. What we are seeking to do is by this suggestion, these proposals of these tests, to ensure that even at this late stage there is a means by which Saddam can show reasonably that he is coming in to compliance with his obligations going back to 1991. And 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. But I have to say, such statements rejecting the obligations on all of us, obviously make that process more difficult."
Both Blair and Straw view the international community with the same communitarian spirit that they have applied to civil society. They view France as an anti-social neighbour who is increasing the insecurity of the community and, in their eyes, the gallic cock should be served with some form of restraining order. The disillusionment of the Blair administration with the current global institutions may well lead them down radical paths in their desire to collectivise security around the globe and they may find fellow travellers in the neo-conservatives of the New American Century. Needless to say, the French are at the height of their influence and it is just about to fizzle out unless they drop troops in Baghdad itself (and they are so inflated by their influence that I wouldn't put such a catastrophic misjudgement past them).
But America should be warned: they may not wish to establish an empire but Britain's leaders may see the Pax Americana as the solid foundation for a future international order.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
March
(120)
- Understanding Blair - 31st March 2003, 23.15 Many...
- Alexander's Heirs - 31st March 2003, 22.55 Lord R...
- The 'War on Terror' loses its Allies - 31st March ...
- Some Insults - 31st March 2003, 21.57 National Re...
- Zimwatch: Final Days? Personally I don't think th...
- Good thing it was Last Year's War As you have fou...
- America and the World - 30th March 2003, 21.45 Th...
- But is he entirely sane? Matthew Parris asks whet...
- Zimwatch: Now it's for keeps Looks like we're ap...
- Unsustainable Current British troop levels in Bag...
- Robin Red Top Robin Cook writes in the Sunday Mir...
- Win it while we're in it An excellent article by ...
- City Limits Simon Jenkins writes on whether or no...
- Sour Krauts The war is proving unpopular in Germa...
- Rallying round the flag Steve Sailer writes an in...
- Regime Change - 28th March 2003, 0.30 This was no...
- Those who wish or predict defeat - 27th March 2003...
- The Price of Oil and the National Interest The Mo...
- Outsourcing the British Body Count I am now outso...
- Killing Ground Iraqi exile Burhan al-Chalabi writ...
- British Body Count 25/3 2 - Tank crew caught in ...
- It Takes One to Know One - 25th March 2003, 22.08 ...
- Howelling - 25th March 2003, Lord Howell writes ...
- Oh No, Not Again - 25th March 2003, 21.27 One wou...
- Where are the cheering crowds? So the crowds are...
- In case you forgot Meanwhile in last year's war: ...
- Odds Behaviour A $100 payout if Saddam no longer ...
- Silly Thought Has anyone noticed that the first t...
- Zimwatch: over here Strange happenings in Southen...
- Body Count Update 24/3 1 British soldier killed...
- The Interlocking Wheels of Diplomacy and War - 25t...
- Missile Defence: Upgrading of Thule - 25th March 2...
- Slovenia: Confirmed Results - 25th March 2003, 20....
- Dum Frum David Frum beats the Anglospheric drum. ...
- Casualties - 24rd March 2003, 20.35 I have tended...
- Political responses to the Convention - 23rd March...
- Slovenia votes yes - 23rd March 2003, 19.54 Exit ...
- A Snippet There seems to be a fleet street rumour...
- British Body Count As one of the main objections ...
- European Constitution: Internal Security - 23rd Ma...
- Zimwatch: Endgame? Is Mugabe's rule coming to an ...
- A Marriage made in Hell - 22nd March 2003, 20.50 ...
- Levantine Musings The always thought provoking Ge...
- Unlike the Roman Someone has put something in Sea...
- Consequences of the Franco-British rift - 21st Mar...
- That coalition Here's the coalition of the willin...
- A cool handshake - 21st March 2003, 7.13 It's wha...
- Reverse Engineering - 21st March 2003, 7.08 Punis...
- Unintended Consequence It seems that Jack Straw h...
- No great rift quite yet David Carr makes an argum...
- Military Objectives - 20th March 2003, 18.35 The ...
- UNtimely Obituary - 20th March 2003, 18.33 It is ...
- A column I've put out one of my more batty theori...
- Who would be so clumsy? - 19th March 2003, 23.35 ...
- The French for Democracy Flawed democracies are e...
- For everything else, there's France - 19th March 2...
- Tory Rebellion Latest So who are the new Tory reb...
- Zimwatch: Signs of Movement - 18th March 2003, 22....
- Go Davies Go With all the talk of Blair going bec...
- You're either with us, or... A belated happy St P...
- Emigration - 18th March 2003, 20.42 I was attendi...
- Don't expect any help from the American Left - 17t...
- A New Labour Manifesto - 17th March 2003, 20.26 B...
- Salisbury Review Article on Transnational Progress...
- Slovenia - 16th March 2003, 22.45 My first look a...
- Two Birds, One Stone Like chimps typing Hamlet, S...
- The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin - 16th March ...
- And what about NORAID? Useful Bush quote: Well, ...
- Before you leap... The most frustrating thing abo...
- War and Britain's role in the European Convention ...
- It doesn't just affect us - 15th March 2003, 20.18...
- Turkish Delight Colby Cosh has a little piece on ...
- Condemned to repeat Gary North suggests that the ...
- How Le Monde sees it: solidarity - 14th March 2003...
- Entente Cordiale? - 13th March 2003, 22.50 How wi...
- Coming Round Conservative Observer has an interes...
- And who's land is this? Armed US troops stormed t...
- Analysis - 12th March 2003, 23.13 Here is the lin...
- Brown's Euro Claptrap - 12th March 2003, 22.48 Wh...
- Giscard is showing his hand - 12th March 2003, 22....
- Short's Measure British Spin asks why Clare Short...
- Who is John Randall? - 11th March 2003, 22.38 Joh...
- Guess what was inaugurated today? - 11th March 200...
- Paper Laws Bad joke of the day (nine year olds an...
- Damage - 10th March 2003, 23.07 On Airstrip One, ...
- Reading from a different hymn book - 10th March 20...
- Stuff Impartiality! - 9th March 2003, 20.40 One o...
- Peter Hain's Publicity Offensive - 9th March 2003,...
- An Affirmation - 9th March 2003, 20.03 Malta has ...
- Manful Doubts Junius shows doubts about the peace...
- Two slipstreams After savaging Perry de Haviland,...
- Mind the Grass A bit of a blip on the hit counter...
- British Spin is back British Spin has some trench...
- You Heard it here first I've had it hinted from t...
- Samismear I always judge the effectiveness of a p...
- News from the Convention - 7th March 2003, 21.14 ...
- An Unfavourable Comparison - 7th March 2003, 20.56...
- Diary Dates - 7th March 2003, 20.37 On the eve of...
- What a man Mises.org puts in an appreciation of R...
- Status Quo Helen Szamuely (is she George Szamuely...
-
▼
March
(120)
0 comments:
Post a Comment