Chirac's latest ploy stinks of blatant hypocrisy

Post-9/11 Era Forum

http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,...1352262,00.html

Chirac's latest ploy stinks of blatant hypocrisy


JACQUES CHIRAC'S scheme to win French companies fat contracts in reconstructing Iraq has run into realpolitik: anti-U.S. actions have consequences.
After a decade of opposing any pressure on Saddam to obey U.N. resolutions, France reversed itself after its favorite dictator was brought down. Chirac and his new ally, Vladimir Putin, let it be known they would refuse to lift U.N. sanctions on the sale of Iraqi oil.

Last week's Chirac-Putin ultimatum: If we don't get French-Russian contracts to rebuild Iraq, then we won't let Iraq sell its oil. You suffer the casualties; we get the contracts.

France and Russia also want to keep under U.N. control the currently permitted sale of Iraqi oil, ostensibly to buy food and medicine for a majority of Iraqis. That's because the oil-for-food bureaucracy headed by Benon Sevan let Saddam steer billions in banking and commercial business to Paris, Moscow and Damascus.

The blatant hypocrisy of all this created an op-ed firestorm. In The Times, Claudia Rosett exposed the secrecy of the oil-for-food boondoggle, manipulated by Saddam to favor Security Council supporters. Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post excoriated Chirac's brazen flip-flop of opposing sanctions on Saddam and then insisting they be imposed on post-Saddam Iraq. My own tirade appeared in the International Herald Tribune, read in Paris by Quai d'Orsay's would-be Talleyrands.

As France appeared to be taking the moral low ground, Security Council diplomats became uncomfortable. Then France appeared to have been struck by sweet reason. Instead of ending sanctions on a regime that no longer existed, France floated a proposal merely suspending sanctions until the Security Council decides that the new post-Saddam Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction.

Some compromise. That neat trick is designed to force the United States into gaining the U.N. inspectors' approval before sanctions are ended. It would keep a heavy U.N. foot on Iraqi pipelines and keep France in the reconstruction contracts business. Suspension would put the emerging Iraq in a class with Libya, still suspended after its downing of Pan Am 103.

Fortunately, Colin Powell is not about to be sandbagged again. The State Department spent Wednesday preparing a U.N. resolution to decisively end, not merely suspend, economic sanctions on Iraq. If carefully crafted, then it should contain language similar to that of the oil-for-food resolution. That would guarantee that proceeds from future oil sales held in trust for the interim Iraqi authority would be immune from attachment by previous claimants.

In plain language, that means that sales of Iraqi oil sold starting now would be for rebuilding the nation, and could not be snatched by France and Russia to pay Saddam's old arms debts. Chirac and Putin won't like that a bit. Would either of them veto the will of a Security Council majority and stand before the Arab world as greedy obstructionists? Let's see.

Planners of the trust fund flowing from the end of sanctions should draw lessons from the Saddam-dominated, secretive U.N. oil-for-food mess. Barham Salih, a Kurdish leader, told the Wall Street Journal that "half of the money allocated to Iraqi Kurdistan never reached us, thanks to bureaucratic obstacles erected in Baghdad and supported by U.N. Plaza. ... We could not pay a single teacher or doctor with this money, while oil-for-food largess went to Uday Hussein's National Olympic Committee."

U.N. Under Secretary Sevan admits that the French bank BNP Paribas was chosen to issue letters of credit to most of the favored suppliers, but brands as "inaccuracies" charges by Rosett and me of secrecy. He cites a hundred audits in five years. But details of which companies in what countries got how much -- that's not public.

The U.S. has a seat on the "611 committee," which supposedly oversees this $12 billion bureaucratic bonanza. Its reports should be available to Congress; Henry Hyde, the House's International Affairs chairman, is looking into that. Sen. Arlen Specter of Senate Appropriations wrote to Powell on Wednesday about "reports that these funds are a slush fund," saying, "I urge the State Department to demand an accounting."

France hasn't seriously harmed the United States; we'll be friendly again. But in their hubristic drive for dominance in Europe, combined with their grubby grab for contracts, Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seek4Justice
[B]http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,...1352262,00.html

Chirac's latest ploy stinks of blatant hypocrisy


JACQUES CHIRAC'S scheme to win French companies fat contracts in reconstructing Iraq has run into realpolitik: anti-U.S. actions have consequences.

After a decade of opposing any pressure on Saddam to obey U.N. resolutions, France reversed itself after its favorite dictator was brought down. Chirac and his new ally, Vladimir Putin, let it be known they would refuse to lift U.N. sanctions on the sale of Iraqi oil.

Last week's Chirac-Putin ultimatum: If we don't get French-Russian contracts to rebuild Iraq, then we won't let Iraq sell its oil. You suffer the casualties; we get the contracts.


Actually what a joke these people are. They choose to downgrade the coalition forces, yet they have the nerve to swtich over and want to make the money off of it? I hope the people that have been *****ing about American Corporations coming in to rebuild are reading this mess.

Why am I not surprised by this!

Why will I not be surprised when the same people that argue against America will say what a good thing this is!

I look forward to the ignorant replies this will bring!

And America is supposed to be embarrassed? Gotta love that French and Russian gov't! What a laugh!

I heard they are going to try and intervene with the UN on the oil for food situation, but I believe the U.N has already approved it! I think that is what I heard tonight.

Shame on you, France.

Shame on you, France. Shame on you.

i think what's even more hilarious is the fact that so ignorant are people that they don't think about the fact that bidding on contracts would require assembling the necessary groups to oversee this and then go through official business of signing companies to projects. this would be an especially huge pain in the *** for international corps. just more time wasted. and yet, they want the coalition troops to leave as soon as possible.

YES this is how this sort of thing happens. the gov. has connections to bechtel who have been involved in middle east reconstruction projects for years. the gov. picks the most reliable company to which they have quick access. bechtel moves out. projects begin.

but no. instead, we should put together a group to establish biddings so that we can sit around for weeks while relying on soldiers and a small iraqi workforce to do all the work.

anti war crowd doesn't know what the hell they want anymore.

FOR THEM it's the right thing to do...just like the U.S. wants to do what's in the U.S. best interests, France acting rationally would think France 1st...just like the U.S. does and try and use whatever edge they can to get what they want. It's all part of the competition for resources in the open market. The U.S. being the main WORSHIPPER of the free market, should applaud their efforts to use whatever they can to compete.

Dave,

Let me ask you this....

Now that it is done and since there is no turning back. What do you think should be done? You say that they will not be free as long as forces are still there.

Let me put it to you this way....

The forces decide to leave, nothing is accomplished as far as rebuilding or new gov't, but they decide to make the anti war people happy and they leave. What happens to the Iraqi's? Who helps them rebuild? We should just hand the rebuilding money to who? Everyone know that the iraqi's do not have the resources to do it themselves. Who takes over the gov't? Who makes the ultimate decision because no one is there to do that right now.

Just curious to hear what you have to say.

I mean we can still argue about the war over and over but whats the point? Its done.....so what do you feel should happen next?