PDA

View Full Version : Why The French So Anti-war?


Mike AI
02-21-2003, 01:16 AM
The Chirac-Hussein Connection - Courtesy of Stratfor.com

February 19, 2003





Summary

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France’s behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq’s purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did.

Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac’s run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac’s full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac’s willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as “Shah-Iraq” and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as “O-Chirac.”

Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality.

Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal “came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic.” Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn’t know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli.

There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d’Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq’s legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called “caramel,” was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined.

By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, “It wasn’t me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d’Estaing.” He went on to say, “I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late.”

Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry – who at that time was Michel d’Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d’Ornano claimed that he didn’t even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac.

In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors – which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, “Le Canard Enchaine” published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein

XXXPhoto
02-21-2003, 03:42 AM
Mike:

Very informative... gets some of those puzzle pieces fitting together.

I was in service early to mid 90's and aware that a large percentage of
Iraqi weapons were of French origin; but never had clue as to what the
connection was...

1975 would be right about the time OPEC was gearing up yes? Any more
backtrail on that?

Sincerely,

Mark XXXPhoto

Niche Ezines for Lease at SnMContent.com (http://www.snmcontent.com/index.html?oprano)

JR
02-21-2003, 03:54 AM
why should France not be against war?

i think thats a natural attitude for people who have spent 1000 years humiliating themselves by eagerly surrendering to trees, ponds of water, loafs of bread or even a menacing bottle of Merlot.

its not a surprise that their most moving stories of military leadership and success are about a 14th century peasant girl who dressed as a man.

also not a surprise that she was rewarded for her successes in battle by being burned at the stake. she probably was guilty of the long standing, French high crime of having the red wine with the fish.
:o



Last edited by JR at Feb 21 2003, 01:17 AM

slavdogg
02-21-2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by JR@Feb 21 2003, 04:02 AM
its not a surprise that their most moving stories of military leadership and success are about a 14th century peasant girl who dressed as a man.



HAHAHA JR, you crack me up lol

slavdogg
02-21-2003, 04:57 AM
Mike, i've read stuff like that as well. Very interesting i must say.
But what French and the Germans are really afraid of is what we dont already know about their actions and sales to Iraq. It could get pretty bad.


plus there is oil contracts and thats where French and Russians have things in common.

here is another good article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=31159 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31159)

Almighty Colin
02-21-2003, 06:13 AM
Holy shit, that was funny.

originalheather
02-21-2003, 10:01 AM
What kind of circular logic is that? If the Germans know about dictatorships, (and they do) why haven't they sent both tanks rumbling toward Baghdad at the head of the column?

Both tanks, lol.

But sadly, this seems to be right on:

It's about the oil.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Almighty Colin
02-21-2003, 10:05 AM
Summed up by ...

Everyone does and should act in their best interest. Sometimes people are mistaken as to what is in their best interest.

Jeremy-RR
02-21-2003, 11:17 AM
Interesting reading Mike :-))

I wonder if once you start to look at the interaction of people at these kinds of levels in government, you couldn't show whatever sort of 'connection' you wanted?

Of course, if it helps to feed / 'prove' an existing view then that's jolly helpful, isn't it.

Look at the Bush / 9-11 / Bin Laden / Oil Companies BS :-))

FWIW, I think the French are purely trouble-making for their own gain - they've long had an active arms industry and want to guarantee their own oil supplies.

They also probably want to make sure that Europe really does "vive la difference" when it comes to the US. In an enlarged, more federal Europe, the French powerbase would be diluted (about bloody time).

On a side note - any idea where the present day enmity between the US & France originated from? You two were pretty tight when the War of Independence was going on.

Mike AI
02-21-2003, 11:46 AM
See I beleive this Persian Gulf War is NOT about the oil. We are going to spend way to much for it to be about the oil - it would not make economic sense. Especially when Saddam is more then willing to sell his oil at below market price.... to anyone....

The President of the US took an oath of office to protect the citizens of the US from all threats. Saddam might not be a direct threat to the US at this moment, but he is very close to being one. He is also in a region and area where he has worked with terrorist groups, and if he distributed his biological warfare weapons to them we could be in a world of hurt.

I do not beleive the link to al quada is a strong, but Saddam has supported many other groups that have been hostile to us, including Hezbollah and Hamas.



And JR, you are one funny guy.... I think you need your own radio show!!