French diplomatic types love to hide their devious designs behind high-minded ideals, such as "justice" in this case. But, when looked at more closely, we usually find the true motivations are more sordid.
A good commentary by this blogger on the cynical nature of France's noticeably hasty rush to avoid taking a hard line on Syria.
--------------
"France Says Too Early for Sanctions Against Syria," read the headline of this news article. I agree it's too early, since the final report of the United Nations won't be released until December. But somehow I suspected France meant waiting longer than two months.
"We have here an opportunity to do justice with an independent inquiry. Let's go to the end ... if we need to make it longer, let's do it, and afterwards lets see what the consequences should be, including on the question... of sanctions," stated French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. That's right; the French are already asking for an extension, even though the UN hasn't asked for it.
Let's review the facts quickly. Rafiq al-Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, was killed along with 22 others when his motorcade was blown up in Beruit last February. The UN probe issued a preliminary report indicating they had evidence of Syrian involvement. Lebanon even froze five accounts they believe are related to the murder. Things aren't looking good for some major Syrian officials.
But again, I wouldn't suggest sanctions before the final report. So why has Bush warned that he would push for them, and why is France already objecting? Because the report also found evidence of massive systematic cover-ups by the Syrian government. So we find ourselves in a familiar situation; see if you can see any analogies:
* A government is widely believed to have conducted something illegal.
* The UN is investigating.
* The UN complains that the government is not cooperating, and writes a letter to the Secretary General asking for help.
* The US tries to apply pressure to force cooperation.
* France objects.
Why would a country that has profited from stealing money from the Oil for Food program, bought oil from Saddam under sanctions, conducted illegal trade with Iraq, and generally profited from Saddam's rule -- why would such a country possibly oppose anything to upset Syria? Maybe because Syria, the former French colony, conducts eighteen percent of its trade with France. That's over a billion dollars worth of exports, and nearly as much in imports, each year. How many French politicians can you buy with a billion dollars? All of them.
French politicians are reliving the past, believing that they are a second superpower that can counter America's influence in the world. As such, the believe anything that hurts America is good for them. Saving a few billion in trade is a cherry on the top.
Really think the French are our friends, deep down? A survey found that twenty-five percent were hoping America would lose the war in Iraq. And President Chirac? Remember in the early 1990's, when Jose Bove destroyed a McDonald's franchise (which he viewed as a symbol of America)? Chirac publicly supported him, claiming "complete solidarity," and even going so far as to say "I detest McDonalds."
France has been a thorn in America's side since the French and Indian Wars of the eighteenth century. Why should we expect a change of heart now?
If you'd like a complete history of America's relationship with France, I recommend Our Oldest Enemy, an excellent book on the subject.
nervous-rodent.blogspot.com . . .
A good commentary by this blogger on the cynical nature of France's noticeably hasty rush to avoid taking a hard line on Syria.
--------------
"France Says Too Early for Sanctions Against Syria," read the headline of this news article. I agree it's too early, since the final report of the United Nations won't be released until December. But somehow I suspected France meant waiting longer than two months.
"We have here an opportunity to do justice with an independent inquiry. Let's go to the end ... if we need to make it longer, let's do it, and afterwards lets see what the consequences should be, including on the question... of sanctions," stated French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. That's right; the French are already asking for an extension, even though the UN hasn't asked for it.
Let's review the facts quickly. Rafiq al-Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, was killed along with 22 others when his motorcade was blown up in Beruit last February. The UN probe issued a preliminary report indicating they had evidence of Syrian involvement. Lebanon even froze five accounts they believe are related to the murder. Things aren't looking good for some major Syrian officials.
But again, I wouldn't suggest sanctions before the final report. So why has Bush warned that he would push for them, and why is France already objecting? Because the report also found evidence of massive systematic cover-ups by the Syrian government. So we find ourselves in a familiar situation; see if you can see any analogies:
* A government is widely believed to have conducted something illegal.
* The UN is investigating.
* The UN complains that the government is not cooperating, and writes a letter to the Secretary General asking for help.
* The US tries to apply pressure to force cooperation.
* France objects.
Why would a country that has profited from stealing money from the Oil for Food program, bought oil from Saddam under sanctions, conducted illegal trade with Iraq, and generally profited from Saddam's rule -- why would such a country possibly oppose anything to upset Syria? Maybe because Syria, the former French colony, conducts eighteen percent of its trade with France. That's over a billion dollars worth of exports, and nearly as much in imports, each year. How many French politicians can you buy with a billion dollars? All of them.
French politicians are reliving the past, believing that they are a second superpower that can counter America's influence in the world. As such, the believe anything that hurts America is good for them. Saving a few billion in trade is a cherry on the top.
Really think the French are our friends, deep down? A survey found that twenty-five percent were hoping America would lose the war in Iraq. And President Chirac? Remember in the early 1990's, when Jose Bove destroyed a McDonald's franchise (which he viewed as a symbol of America)? Chirac publicly supported him, claiming "complete solidarity," and even going so far as to say "I detest McDonalds."
France has been a thorn in America's side since the French and Indian Wars of the eighteenth century. Why should we expect a change of heart now?
If you'd like a complete history of America's relationship with France, I recommend Our Oldest Enemy, an excellent book on the subject.
nervous-rodent.blogspot.com . . .
