I think this sounds intriguing! http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030208/80/dssok.html Franco-German plan floated to avert Iraq war By Emma Thomasson MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions, a magazine has reported. Germany's leading news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday said the idea had originated in the office of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Berlin and Paris had been working on the details of the initiative in secret talks since the beginning of the year. A German government spokesman confirmed Berlin and Paris were collaborating to find a peaceful alternative to war with Iraq, but would not provide any details of the efforts. German government sources said the initiative built on proposals made by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin this week to intensify weapons inspections in Iraq and offer French reconnaissance planes to support them. After talks with German Defence Minister Peter Struck in Munich, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had not been officially informed of the initiative. U.S. officials said it was "extraordinary" Rumsfeld had not been told of the plan. "I heard about it from the press. No official word. I have no knowledge of it," Rumsfeld told journalists after the meeting with Struck on the sidelines of a major security conference. A senior U.S. official said Rumsfeld had questioned Struck on reports of the proposal to beef up inspections in Iraq and the German side had confirmed they were talking to the French but were not ready to discuss the plan with the Americans. "We're now making the point to every Frenchman and German we find that that is not the way to have a winning hand with the United States," the official said. Struck would only say the plan represented a "concrete proposal", but added he did not want to preempt an address by Schroeder on Iraq to the German parliament on Thursday. OLD EUROPE STRIKES BACK Schroeder, who has angered Washington with his opposition to any war with Iraq, would discuss the idea at the weekend with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Der Spiegel said. France would probably take over driving the initiative forward and use it as a basis for a new Security Council resolution proposal. French and German reticence over war has infuriated Washington, prompting Rumsfeld to label them "old Europe", saying they were isolated in a continent whose centre of gravity was shifting east to embrace U.S. allies in central Europe. The French Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the proposal but French diplomatic sources confirmed Paris was discussing bolstering inspections with Security Council members. French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told the Munich conference Paris believed inspections had proved more effective than the Gulf War of 1991 in disarming Iraq, but did not rule out military action as a last resort to make Baghdad cooperate. "That's why France has proposed reinforcing the means given to inspectors, to reinforce the number of inspectors," she said. In an advance copy ahead of publication on Sunday, Der Spiegel said Berlin and Paris wanted to publish their proposal in the next few days before weapons inspectors in Iraq report back to the U.N. Security Council on Friday. Initial reactions from Security Council veto-holders Russia and China and European Union president Greece were positive, the magazine said, while Pope John Paul had offered German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer support for the initiative. U.N. PROTECTORATE Der Spiegel said the initiative, which it said had been dubbed "Project Mirage", included the following proposals: -- the some 150,000 U.S. troops already deployed to the Gulf should stay in place to force Baghdad to cooperate and be ready to invade if it breaches the new proposed U.N. resolution; -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed U.N. troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections in the whole country as well as full disarmament, creating a de facto "U.N. protectorate"; -- the number of weapons inspectors should be tripled from the current 100 operating in Iraq; -- the no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq should be extended to cover the whole country and French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes should be allowed to patrol the skies; -- a permanent U.N. coordinator of arms inspections in Iraq could be appointed; -- sanctions should be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq's neighbours and tighten export controls; -- a special U.N. court should be established to oversee infringements of the new resolution and human rights abuses; The magazine said the initiative could help Schroeder out of the corner he seemed to have backed himself into over Iraq, risking international isolation if he sticks to his anti-war stance but political suicide at home if he changes course. He could sell the proposal to war-weary Germans as a last-ditch bid to avert conflict, but swing behind any military action if Baghdad failed to go along with the plan, it said, although without the involvement of German troops. U.S. President George W. Bush has said the United Nations must soon decide whether to back his demand that Iraq abandon its alleged chemical, biological and nuclear programmes or be disarmed by force. Iraq denies having any such weapons.
If France & Germany operated under the belief system that Iraq had no WMD (or some violation of past agreement) and that the recent presentation by Sec of Stae Powell failed to change that impression.............then why do they want this setup to make Saddam & Co undergo a full disarmament? If the US forces remain outside Iraqi borders, then what armies are providing the thousands of UN troops to enforce the disarmament inside Iraq? The <i>Bundeswehr</i>?
I find the plan most intresting because it is the first time that France and Germany have taken their first significant step from their entrenched antiwar position. I had half expected to see a proposal to encircle Iraq with a sucessor to Frances wildly successful Maginot Line. There are some teeth to a couple parts of this proposal, specifally the proposals to extend the no-fly zone to the entire country and include warplanes from countries other than the US and Brittian, and the "UN Protectorate" bit. That's more extreme than I ever expected either country to go. Coupled with Russia's recient softening on it's Iraq stance, the only roadblock I still see is China. I wonder whether we'll see any change in position from them?
They are just trying to protect their own Oil contracts with Iraq...once we attack, all that money they have is out the window. I find it funny that the world says the USA is only out for it's own interests, when most countries are as well. DD
If France & Germany operated under the belief system that Iraq had no WMD (or some violation of past agreement) and that the recent presentation by Sec of Stae Powell failed to change that impression...... When did they say they believed he had no WMD?
Recently. <A HREF="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030208-070617-2097r">Rumsfeld annoyed over secret plan on Iraq </A> <i>........German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer made a passionate, defensive response to Rumsfeld's charges. "We are doing better than the others are!" he said, referring to the German troop contribution to Afghanistan, which now numbers 3,000, he said. Germany is also slated to take over command of the international peacekeeping force with the Netherlands. Fischer said he personally had pushed Germany, after years of non-militarism, to join the war in Kosovo, and then in Macedonia and then in Afghanistan. But he sees a clear distinction between those situations and Iraq. "It wasn't just force. It was a last resort," he said. Germany is not shy about using force when it is necessary, Fischer said from the podium but directly to Rumsfeld, who was at that point seated in the audience. <b> "Why this priority now? Why now? We've all known what we've known (about Iraq) for years," he said. "We owe our own democracy to America," he conceded, recalling World War II, "but we have to be convinced." "Excuse me," he shouted, switching to English, "I'm not convinced!"...............</b>
Wow. France and Germany (or people from the same area) have fought each other for at least 1,000 years. Now they're united against us. We've figured out a great way to heal historical hatreds. Let's try it in the Middle East and see if we can get all those countries working together. And to think, a few years ago some moron came out with the idea that History is dead.
I posted this previously in another thread. <A HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html">Germany's leading role in arming Iraq</A> <i>........Friedbert Pflueger, foreign policy spokesman of the main opposition Christian Democratic parties and an embittered critic of Schroeder's and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's Iraq policy, last Thursday accused the red-green coalition government of deliberately keeping the German and world public uninformed of BND (German foreign intelligence service) evidence and assessments on the continued existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). "If we trust our [intelligence] services, and I do, then we know that there exist weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Pflueger, and referred to a November 13, 2002, BND briefing of members of parliament's foreign affairs committee in which relevant information was disclosed. As a member of parliament, added Pflueger, he was bound by his secrecy oath not to pass on such information, but challenged Schroeder to make it public forthwith. <b>This was necessary, he said, "so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".</b> He said further that he would dearly like to know exactly how many different types of smallpox virus were in Iraq's possession as - during a November 13 budget committee meeting - Health Minister Ulla Schmidt had motivated her request for a several million euro allocation for the purchase of smallpox vaccine with reference to such Iraqi stocks. Well, Gerhard, why's your minister worried? Or do vaccine purchases fall into the category of economic stimulus for the pharmaceutical industry?......</i> There does seem to be a shift in the French position. Weren't you one of the people asking for something substanial as far as proof in the recent past, rather than taking the US government's <i>word</i>? Since the French aren't viewed as being the US <i>ally</i> that Britian is, maybe you would deem this an <i>unbiased</i> announcement by the French. <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/international/europe/06NATI.html">France, Backed by Germany, Calls for Stronger Inspections, but the U.S. Is Unmoved</A> <i>...........There were subtle signs that Mr. Powell's presentation had produced some shifts. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said for the first time that Paris had "indications" that Iraq was developing the nerve agent VX, anthrax and botulinum toxin, and was building missiles to exceed United Nations range limits................</i> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/international/05text_france.html">France's Remarks to the U.N.</A>
"Why this priority now? Why now? We've all known what we've known (about Iraq) for years," he said. "We owe our own democracy to America," he conceded, recalling World War II, "but we have to be convinced." "Excuse me," he shouted, switching to English, "I'm not convinced!"............... Given that they said "We've all known what we've known (about Iraq) for years", I presume they accept that Iraq is violating sanctions. They probably still need to be convinced that war is the only alternative. And they probably want evidence to justify whatever action we end up taking. Seems to me that those countries simply want a smoking gun before arguing to their people that they need to send them into harm's way to eliminate Hussein. This was necessary, he said, "so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination". This is a quote from the opposition minority leader -- is there any evidence Schroeder actually does this as opposed to this just being rhetoric? We have Democratic congressmen on the intelligence committees that have said all the evidence is non-conclusive, too. Weren't you one of the people asking for something substanial as far as proof in the recent past, rather than taking the US government's word? Since the French aren't viewed as being the US ally that Britian is, maybe you would deem this an unbiased announcement by the French. Sure, and then a part of that presentation is a distorted copy of magazine articles from 12 years ago? Yeah, that's going to get the rest of the world on board. If we've helped convince the French gov't, great. Now we have a bunch of other governments and people all over the world still to go. What does that have to do with anything, though? It doesn't show that the French didn't believe that he had WMD, just that they wanted evidence one way or the other like a majority of Americans do as well. --- All that aside, my issue is with your view that France and Germany don't think he has WMD. If they weren't concerned that Iraq has or is developing WMD, they wouldn't have agreed to Resolution 1441 and they wouldn't be pushing inspections. They just don't feel war is the only solution. Many people, here on this board and elsewhere, have said "well, then how do you expect to get Iraq to disarm?" so they now came out with their own proposal. It will be interesting to see where world opinion turns, at the very least. If nothing else, it may make the US look even more like warmongerers if we reject a potential solution that people believe would work. Perhaps calling these guys "Old Europe" wasn't such a smart idea (big shocker there!).
Does anybody else believe that should the French and German governments enact their plan that the UN soldiers wouldn't be allowed in Iraq without a fight? Their mere presence would spark a war...and one that our side would be not NEARLY as well prepared for. The France-Germany plan would increase casualties.
Does anybody else believe that should the French and German governments enact their plan that the UN soldiers wouldn't be allowed in Iraq without a fight? Their mere presence would spark a war...and one that our side would be not NEARLY as well prepared for. The France-Germany plan would increase casualties. Ummm, this would be done with Iraqi approval. The UN isn't going to send in troops for non-war missions without approval by the nation involved. Hussein is power-hungry, but he isn't stupid. Attacking UN troops after they enter Iraq with his permission would ensure his own death. If he wanted to do that kind of stuff, he could be killing weapons inspectors too.
I think their plan has merit, if only for the reason that it stands a chance of saving the lives of the U.S. soldiers that our administration is so eager to endanger. In wars people die, and I think a lot of the warhawks forget that.
This is all very interesting, but it ignores two very important likelihoods: 1) Saddam will never agree to a de facto invasion by Europeans just to avoid a real invasion by Americans, and 2) he will never, under any circumstances, peacefully give up his WMD. As I've said before, even if the inspectors somehow found every lab and WMD cache tomorrow, what is Saddam going to do? Give them up and move on with life peacefully or just expel (or murder) the inspectors? Sounds nice, but they're forgetting who's on the other end of the deal. Iraq's leadership is the real problem here, not so much the weapons themselves.
1) Saddam will never agree to a de facto invasion by Europeans just to avoid a real invasion by Americans, and The first scenario would build international support for invasion, though. what is Saddam going to do? Give them up and move on with life peacefully or just expel (or murder) the inspectors? He may expel the inspectors, which would also help justify Washington's stance. He certainly won't murder them - for the same reason he didn't use chem/bio weapons in 1991. It would ensure his own death. Saddam is addicted to power. Right now, he's as close to losing power as he has been in a long time - he will tread carefully, and if his only options are to give up WMD or be killed, he may very well give up WMD. He's not there yet, though.
You are missing my view entirely. I am pointing out the inconsistency in the leadership of France & Germany. Publicly, Chirac and Schroeder keep stringing the US along for <i>more proof</i>. Yet, a level or two down from the top, there is acknowledgement by the head of the German <i>BND</i> (Hanning) and the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin that there are indications of things that are against the past agreements. The French have intelligence on Iraq: <b> The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said for the first time that Paris had "indications" that Iraq was developing the nerve agent VX, anthrax and botulinum toxin, and was building missiles to exceed United Nations range limits................ </b> Why aren't they (France & Germany) being more proactive in pursuing this matter? Would de Villepin have revealed what he did if Powell hadn't opened the door for him last week? You bring the British report into this thread, yet bypass what de Villepin and Hanning have said about Iraq in connection with WMD & missiles. My Deutsch is too rusty for me to flip through German web sites pursuing a Schroder quote that fills the bill for you. Do you have one that has him saying the opposite of that to prove my quoted source incorrect? In regards to an enlarged inspections program that bypasses war, Saddam went through this routine in the 90's of agreeing to these type of things and then reneging on the agreement when the pressure eased up. That is why this latest proposal by France - Germany is quite likely to run into difficulties if applied. For the sake of the discussion: <i> 8,000 UN (not British or American) blue hats will accompany the enlarged inspection program.</i> How many will be French & German? Based on how France and Germany took the <i>lead</i> in the troubled Balkans during the 90's, I have very low expectations on the number of troops that they will contribute to the Inspector Protection force. The US will not keep the large troop levels in the ME area for an extended period on a standy basis, so the <i>calvary</i> won't be <i>Over the Hill</i> when Saddam changes his mind again. 8,000 blue hats won't be enough to hold their ground when the wind starts blowing in a different direction. Then: The US buildup begins again The shuttle diplomacy to avert a crisis etc Why is this time <i>different</i> than all of the other times for over a decade that Saddam has gone through the above actions? Since you are discounting the British report........then I will turn to the Blix report. <A HREF="http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/missilediameter.html">Why Did Iraq Increase the Diameter of Its Missiles?</A> <i>On January 27, 2003, Hans Blix, the Executive Director of UNMOVIC, reported to the UN Security Council that, in violation of 1994 orders by the inspectors, Iraq had increased the diameter of its Al Samoud missile to 760 millimeters. This new diameter is dangerously close to enabling this missile to carry a type of nuclear warhead that Iraq was developing prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991. That one-tonne nuclear warhead design called for a diameter of 800 millimeters. Iraq is obligated to limit the diameter of its missiles to less than 600 millimeters and their range to less than 150 kilometers. Inspectors assessed that Iraq could not mount a nuclear warhead on a missile with a diameter less than 600 millimeters. Thus, any effort by Iraq to increase the diameter of its missiles raises serious questions as to whether Iraq is seeking to make its missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it launched a crash nuclear program to build a nuclear weapon. Because its domestic uranium enrichment programs had not yet produced highly enriched uranium (HEU), Iraq decided to secretly divert a stock of safeguarded HEU that it had obtained from France and Russia for use as fuel in its civil research reactors. In parallel to converting the HEU into weapons components, Iraq accelerated its development of a nuclear warhead for a ballistic missile. Iraq viewed a ballistic missile as its main nuclear delivery system. Iraq was developing a modified version of the Al Abid missile with a range of 1,000 kilometers and a nuclear warhead with a mass of over one tonne and a diameter of 1,250 millimeters. This missile, however, could not be developed soon enough for use in the crash program. Iraq's crash program was concentrating on a modified Al Hussein missile with a range of 650 kilometers. This missile, which was narrower than the Al Abid, required a nuclear warhead with a diameter of only 800 millimeters. Iraq planned to finish developing this missile and a one-tonne nuclear warhead of this diameter by the summer of 1991. As a back-up option, Iraq was working on a one-tonne nuclear warhead for its existing Al Hussein missile that had a range of 300 kilometers. Iraq made little progress on the smaller nuclear warhead designs by the time the Persian Gulf War started in January 1991. However, it could have made progress on these designs in the last 12 years, particularly in the last four years when the inspectors were absent from Iraq. As a result, the increase in diameter of the Al Samoud missile must be investigated thoroughly, particularly focusing on any connections to an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.</i> <A HREF="http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5902627%255E15601,00.html">Blix Report</A> <i>.......Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. <b> Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. </b> As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations......</i> After reading the Bix report, I fail to see how Saddam's attitude about this is any different than it was in the 1990's. Your belief that retention of <b>Power</b> will motivate Saddam to change is something that I have exteme difficulty agreeing with. Loss of his weapons (being declawed) after all of the years of beating the system would be humiliating for Saddam. There would be a psychological loss of power even though he would retain the <i>leadership</i> role in Iraq. I assign that psychological loss of power a greater value than you do and thus discount Saddam following things to the letter under the French - German plan.
Not that it means anything, but I just found an article from the Telegraph that would seem to contradict the supposition that France is changing it's position: France has not shifted its stance, says Chirac
I am pointing out the inconsistency in the leadership of France & Germany. Publicly, Chirac and Schroeder keep stringing the US along for more proof. Yet, a level or two down from the top, there is acknowledgement by the head of the German BND (Hanning) and the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin that there are indications of things that are against the past agreements. I don't think they have changed their position at all. They have always been for inspections and disarming Iraq. They have wanted proof to give them a reason why invasion is an immediate necessity. They obviously never did and still don't feel an invasion is necessary and have provided a potential non-war alternative, whether realistically viable or not. Your belief that retention of Power will motivate Saddam to change is something that I have exteme difficulty agreeing with. Loss of his weapons (being declawed) after all of the years of beating the system would be humiliating for Saddam. There would be a psychological loss of power even though he would retain the leadership role in Iraq. Sure, but if his alternative is no power and no weapons, which do you think he would pick?
If high level officials in their own governments can publicly acknowledge these things about Iraq, then there are probably some things that are known & not spoken of by those same officials and also known by Shroeder & Chirac themselves. They wouldn't be in a position to advance the French - German proposal if the US hadn't been pushing the issue of Iraq. If the idea of substantially increasing the number of inspectors and providing UN blue hats to accompany them was such a breakthrough, they could have rolled it out in the spring of 2002 to <b>show their commitment to disarming Iraq</b> and take the lead on the issue instead of being the counter to the US plan in 2003. We will disagree on this.
