WAINAO N°46 - LA BONNE DECISION
WHY NOW? BECAUSE IN 2003, JUST 2 YEARS AFTER THE WOLRD TRADE CENTER TRAGEDY, IT WAS FAR FROM EASY FOR THE FRENCH PRESIDENT TO SAY NO TO THE WAR. USA WAS PUTTING THE PRESSURE ON EVERYBODY TO ATTACK IRAK BUT IT’S PART OF THE FRENCH DNA TO EXPRESS WHATEVER THEY FEEL NO MATTER IF THE PEOPLE AROUND WANT TO HEAR IT OR NOT. French people even have this reputation of being arrogant. Dominique devillepin had one of the most powerful speech ever delivered. Sometimes you got to stand by what you think is right. That’s what makes france and French. That’s why people outside can tell you in a minute, no matter what color, sex, religion you are…if you’re French..
“ France is not a location…France is a state of mind. That arrogance, cockiness that makes them so irrating...but allows them to stand up and say No when nobody else can ! "
“ When millions of lives are in balance, as the person in charge you have to take a decision. The right one is the one that....will allow you to sleep.... ”
February 14, 2003: Dominique de Villepin, French Foreign Minister delivers a speech on to the United Nations Security Council in New York, to express the decision of JACQUES CHIRAC, the president, to not be part of the military intervention against IRAK
On August 1990, the armies of Saddam Hussein easily invade the small and rich emirate of Kuwait, which becomes the "nineteenth province" of Iraq which thus hands the hands on fabulous oil wealth and widens its maritime opening on the gulf Persian (strategic oil route). The UN, which is no longer paralyzed by East / West rivalry, mandates an American-led coalition (Desert Storm Operation) to liberate Kuwait. After the programmed failure of the diplomatic channel in early 1991, a lightning war crushes the Iraqi army and Iraq is placed under embargo and surveillance by the international community.
Ten years later, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the crusade against terrorism decided by George W. Bush , relaunch the "Iraq question" and place Iraq in the countries of the "Axis of Evil".
The UN has mandated inspectors Blix and El Baradeï to control the disarmament of Iraq who estimated the real progress: Iraq has accepted the overflight of its territory by aircraft of aerial reconnaissance and France immediately makes its Mirage IV inspectors available. Saddam Hussein allowed Iraqi scientists to be interviewed without witnesses by the inspectors, But for the Americans, it was not enough and they insisted for a rapid and preventive action that would really guarantee security and peace. They hope to eliminate the dangers of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
France, on the contrary, thinks that, before that before military action, we must take into account the complexity of a multi-faceted region: military, political, economic, cultural and religious. USA stigmatize the French attitude which would aim, according to them, to maintain a regime favorable to the French interests, or at least to save time..
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, one of the "hawks" of the White House, said a few days before the intervention of Dominique de Villepin and with a certain contempt towards France and Germany , that for him the new Europe ( Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary ...) was more important than the old Europe on the decline. The Bush administration's overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on February 2003.
In UN speech, Powell affirmed that bioweapons warheads had been hidden in palm groves; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a “decontamination vehicle” for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam’s guest houses. He even added that “Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
Jacques Chirac with Dominique de Villepin’s voice wants to give his chance to the resolution 1441 voted on the initiative of France: for the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, the inspections of the IAEA must continue because they give results and constitute a credible and balanced alternative to the use of force. Jacques Chirac then threatens to oppose the French veto. On the occasion of this crisis, relations between USA and FRANCE were critics.
On February 14, 2003, Minister, Dominique de Villepin delivered an extremely powerful speech against the Iraq War at the United Nations .
“ Mr. President, Mr. Secretary- General, distinguished ministers, distinguished ambassadors, I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to reiterate to them France's confidence and complete support in their work.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time. We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq[... ] Let us be clear. Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. In unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two- stage approach proposed by France: disarmament through inspections and, It was clearly in the event inspections failed and only in that event that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple. Do we believe in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead end, or do we believe that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France believes two things. First, the option of inspections has not been taken to the end. It can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq.
Secondly, the use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, peace has to be built. [...]No one today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, more stable world, for war is always the sanction of failure..
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war:. Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tension and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
Ten days ago, the U.S. secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported alleged links between al Qaeda and the Baghdad regime. Given the present state of our research and intelligence in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.
[...]France has been saying we do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day. In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament through peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent (inaudible) Europe that has known war, occupation, barbarity. It is an old country that does not forget and is very aware of all it owes to freedom fighters who came from America and elsewhere.
And yet France has always stood upright in the face of history before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wants resolutely to act together with all members of the international community. France believes in our ability to build together a better world.”
Ironically, Dominique de Villepin takes this expression of "old country" to his advantage. Old age is synonymous with wisdom and experience as opposed to the arrogant arrogance of a new country like the United States, implicitly labeled as "going-to-war".
Americans in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, they began to agree with Bush's plan. The U.S. government engaged in an elaborate domestic public relations campaign to market the war to its citizens. Americans overwhelmingly believed Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors had not uncovered those weapons. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons sequestered somewhere,
The main allegations were: that Saddam possessed or was attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction, and, further, that he had ties to terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda.
Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between 11 Sept. and Saddam Hussein]". As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about U.S. intelligence say there is no evidence that Saddam played a role in the 11 Sept. attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. ...
Credible estimates of Iraq War casualties more than 500,000 total deaths . over 60% of them violent. The Iraq war has cost $1.7 trillion, with hundreds of billions more due to take care of all the veterans. And of course, the Iraq war started the chain of events which later gave rise to groups like ISIS, which in turn has bogged the American military in even more countries, and thereby resulted in the slaughter of even more innocent people. medias completely failed in their mission of information to the American public.
Colin Powell later admitted that he lied.
In all, one study found that Bush and his cronies made 935 false statements in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The New York Times’ coverage in the lead up to the Iraq war was so bad that they had to apologize and concede in 2004 that “number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been…Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.” The result of all of this was the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
... FRANCE know his lesson....if you don't want to assume other's mistakes...don't put anybody's opinions above your soul and your heart. !
To know moe about the subject:
^ Iraq Bill Demands U.S. Troop Withdraw Archived 14 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine Associated Press, Fox News, 10 May 2007
Saddam Hussein executed in Iraq". BBC News. 30 December 2006. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
Hersh, S. (10 May 2004) "Torture at Abu Ghraib" Archived 1 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine The New Yorker
America vs. Iraq, 26 August 2013, National Geographic, Television Production, Documentary
A Look at U.S. Deaths in the Iraq War". The Washington Post. Reuters. 25 October 2005. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
Patrick E. Tyler (21 March 2003). "A nation at war: The attack; U.S. and British troops push into Iraq as missiles strike Baghdad compound". The New York Times.
Connolly, Kate (10 February 2003). "I am not convinced, Fischer tells Rumsfeld". Daily Telegraph
Anti-war protests under way". BBC News. 31 October 2002. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
IBT Staff Reporter (8 February 2011). "Little evidence for Iraq WMDs ahead of 2003 war: U.S. declassified report". International Business Times. Retrieved 30 December 2018.
Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief". ABC News: 20/20. September 8, 2005. Retrieved February 3, 2007.