French Geopolitics: Economy or Morality???

Post by **Brinn** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 3:15 pm

www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-09-un-libya_x.htm

Are these the same French who claimed that they would not condone war against Iraq due to moral objections???

Are these the same French that insisted that economic interests had nothing to do with their decision to oppose the war???

'Nuff said.

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 5:50 pm

these are two prima facie .. very different scenarios <Iraq and Libya> .. and goes no way .. imo .. to imply or support that France did not veto the invasion of Iraq on grounds of moral objectionability .. France was not the only country which found the process not only morally but also legally insupportable. I myself deemed the US/Coaliton invasion morally objectionable .. from a completely policy/process perspective <re grounds and bad law precedent setting>

I will return and comment more after i do a bit of homework on the matter

Post by **Brinn** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:47 am

Aha! I knew you wouldn't be able to let this one go! Wlcome back to the Tank!

*Sighs wistfully*

Sky's back, defending the French...all is as it should be...

Post by **variol son** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 2:08 am

Skyweir wrote:France was not the only country which found the process not only morally but also legally insupportable. I myself deemed the US/Coaliton invasion morally objectionable .. from a completely policy/process perspective <re grounds and bad law precedent setting

Go Sky, back the French!

(Vs does the booty dance.)

I love having other downunderians on the Watch.

Sum sui generis
Vs

Post by **Brinn** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:45 am

I myself deemed the US/Coaliton invasion morally objectionable .. from a completely policy/process perspective <re grounds and bad law precedent setting>

The difference being that I actually believe you when you make that statement. You have given me no reason to doubt that your stated objections are truly rooted in morality, however, France's actions both prior to and after the war have given me ample reason to doubt their stated reasons for objecting.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:29 am

I honestly doubt the French threat of veto or veto re: Libya is relevant in any way shape or form to the Iraqi scenario. France was not the only country to share reservations regarding the War in Iraq as it raised a number of objectionable issues - 1. disregarding the operation and existing function of weapons inspections in Iraq as per Resolution 1441 (i may have forgotten the number

LOL ) .. 2. initiating a precarious and un-precedented doctrine of pre-emption .. 3. lacked supportable demonstrated evidence re: need to instigate an act of aggression.

As for Libya .. this is a tale of a different animal .. and from what I have briefly read I am very impressed with the Libyan government in their handing over suspected terrorists and agreeing to a generous settlement/compensation. In that the Libyan government are not in the habit of assuming responsibility for terrorists in their country's actions.

..

The question is why France settled for 33 million in compensation <which is a drop in the bucket> .. from the Libyan govt .. when the US/UK achieved a grand 2.7 billion for the Lockerbie bombing ..

Now interestingly Libya was a French colony and they do have ties with Libya .. so why is the question?? and rightly so the victims of the UTA disaster are very upset about this discrepancy.

The very fact that France now wanted to delay a resolution .. to enable their own negotiations to be re-opened with Libya er: UTA bombing .. in order to claim more compensation .. is very odd indeed. Its hard to see how they can re-negotiate a matter that has already been settled and agreed upon. but clearly it is a hot political dilema for the French govt.

And looking from the French perpsective I can see that they would be a little annoyed that the US?UK compensation securement was far far greater ..

This settlement is about providing for the victims of these 2 seperate terrorist events .. not about providing fiscal benefits for the Governments involved .. and in the case of the French securing just 33 mill to be shared by 170 families ... you do the math

as opposed to the Libyan proposed 2.7 billion to be shared by 270 UK/US families .. and more if sanctions are lifted and Libya removed from the state department list of terrorist sponsors .. to the projected amounts of between .. $4-$10 mill each victims family/next of kin.

so imho .. this scenario can be distinguished from the former issue (War in Iraq) via its completely and utterly different circumstances.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:45 am

I dont see myself as a defender of France per se .. just merely addressing the facts of each particular scenario and attempting to identify what is correct or incorrect .. supportable or insupportable.

I dont see France as being less morally valid in its objection to acts of agression in Iraq .. because of the French governments wanting to save political face and secure greater compensation for its citizens who were victims of alleged Lybian terrorists ..

However .. neither do I condemn France for having an ecomomic imperative akin to that all other western nations possess and pursue ..

and here we see the joys and result of capitalist democracies and agendas ..

and imho .. the US administration is the last nation on earth that can point fingers at France for having underlying economic agendas ..when this same consideration imo .. operates beneath every US action .. particularly in the middle east

so if these views are criticised as nothing more than evil anti-american sentiment .. then negative propaganda against France is like-wise no more than anti-French sentiment ..

it works both ways ..

all western nations are economically driven .. the question is what pie .. these nations have their hands in ..

France's hands would be as unclean as a great number of nation states ..

I guess what I am saying is .. that France is not above criticism cos they only act morally .. ofcourse not!!!

they got their fingers in pies and .. they should be held as accountable as any nation of the same ilk .. the US being no exception ..

Post by **variol son** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:45 am

National governments also need to serve the people of that nation, and sometimes what the people want actually dictates. The New Zealand government backed the US in Afghanistan and this was a popular move with the public. On the issue of Iraq however, the public wasn't that sure what they thought and so the government witheld troops. Opposition parties had a field day at the time, but now, especially considering Tony Blair's position in the UK, their stance is quite understandable, and the whole thing is a bit of non-issue over here.

Sum sui generis
Vs

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:10 pm

thats an excellent point!!!

big enormous kudos vs!!

Post by **variol son** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 12:14 am

And our hands are also just as dirty as those of any other nation, since many who suppoerted the war on Iraq only did so in the hopes of a free trade agreement with the US.

Sum sui generis
Vs

Post by **Skyweir** » Sun Sep 14, 2003 6:07 pm

yes .. indeed .. and i have often mused over the usage .. "Coalition of the Willing" .. willing to do what? exactly?

the willing to secure trade agreements .. and willing to fall into line accordingly as per those agreements.

and there isnt a nation I know of on earth .. that doesnt have dirt on their hands

Post by **Brinn** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:04 am

I agree with your assessment of the situation. As I have argued before, a governments primary responsibility is to provide for the welfare of its people. In this respect I have no problem with the french gov't. They had an economic stake in Iraq and the war placed their interests at risk. France's position at the UN as a member of P5 provides them with a tremendous amount of political clout and they used their veto in an attempt to stop the war. They astutely realize that they will not be required to bear the miltary brunt for the outcomes of their actions and thus can vote accordingly.

The Libyan vote was just another example of the French using their P5 clout and veto power to advance their own agenda.

all western nations are economically driven .. the question is what pie .. these nations have their hands in ..

France's hands would be as unclean as a great number of nation states ..

I guess what I am saying is .. that France is not above criticism cos they only act morally .. ofcourse not!!!

they got their fingers in pies and .. they should be held as accountable as any nation of the same ilk .. the US being no exception ..

Then we are in agreement! ;^)

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:25 am

so should we scrutinise and analyse other nation's motives who are of the same ilk?

Post by **Brinn** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:08 am

Have we not already done so...extensively?;)

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 7:17 am

well .. if you say so

i guess we can always keep further comment under our belts for later

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

French Geopolitics: Economy or Morality???

French Geopolitics: Economy or Morality???