France, Germany present alternative to war

Kontiki · February 8, 2003, 19:35

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968705899037

Quote:

Disarm, occupy Iraq: France, Germany
UN peacekeepers, intence scrutiny sought for Iraq instead of war

BERLIN (AP) - Germany and France are working on a broad disarmament plan for Iraq designed to avoid war, including the deployment of UN soldiers throughout the country, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors, a German magazine reported today.
The plan could be presented to the UN Security Council as a resolution, the weekly Der Spiegel said, although it was unclear how the two countries or the United Nations would win Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's approval for carrying it out.

The plan would have international peacekeepers "in effect take control of the country for years," declare all of Iraq a no-fly zone and lead to agreements with Iraq's neighbours to crack down on smuggled exports of Iraqi oil as part of strengthened economic sanctions, Der Spiegel said.

The German and French governments - both of which oppose U.S. pressure for an early war on Iraq - have been working on the idea since the start of the year, the report said, adding that Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is convinced that Germany needs to move beyond his strict anti-war stand that has angered the United States and present alternative ways to disarm Iraq.

German Defence Minister Peter Struck and his French counterpart Michele Alliot-Marie, both attending a security policy conference in Munich, confirmed that their countries were working on a joint initiative.

They gave no details, but Struck said he would discuss the issue on the sidelines of the conference with U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Schroeder will also address the topic during a speech to parliament Thursday, Struck said.

A German government spokesman confirmed that Germany and France are "jointly considering specific peaceful alternatives to a military solution" in Iraq. The spokesman, speaking on customary condition of anonymity, refused to comment on details.

As part of intensified sanctions against Iraq, western countries would tighten export-control laws, Der Spiegel said. France would provide Mirage jets for reconnaissance flights to aid inspectors in their search for weapons.

Some of the ideas were presented to the Security Council this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. He suggested tripling the number of inspectors and aiding their job with Mirage jets.

Der Spiegel said Germany and France are sounding out other critics of the U.S. approach about their plan, including Russia, China and Greece.

I'm against this war for a multitude of non-pacificist reasons, but this has got to be one of the most rediculous alternatives I could imagine. How, precisely is this any different from a war, unless someone is stupid enough to think that Saddam would volunteer to have his entire country occupied?

chequita guevara · February 8, 2003, 19:37

I do not believe that Iraq would consent to UN occupation. The only way to go about this plan would be to invade Iraq.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 19:40

I love it!

"Please mister dictator, sir....could we umm....move all our guys in under the umbrella of the UN, whom you have already ignored for a decade, and let them run your country?"

-=Vel=-
so much for the enlightened alternative

Drake Tungsten · February 8, 2003, 19:40

So France and Germany support an invasion, just not by America?

Zkribbler · February 8, 2003, 19:48

Sandman · February 8, 2003, 19:50

If Iraq thinks that the choice is between being occupied with a show of dignity and being bombed into submission, and then occupied, then they may choose the former.

Can't see it happening, however, not least because the US will probably try to torpedo the plan.

Are they going to change the rules on PK weapons as well? If the UN wants to occupy Iraq, then it'll need to have at least a handful of heavy weapons.

Felch · February 8, 2003, 19:50

Great, I like this idea. It's essentially what America wants, without America doing the dirty work.

MrBaggins · February 8, 2003, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do not believe that Iraq would consent to UN occupation. The only way to go about this plan would be to invade Iraq.

Splendid idea... when do we start?

Oerdin · February 8, 2003, 19:56

It would be cheaper then going to war so I'm for it, however, with that said Saddam won't give the plan a snow balls chance in hell and he'll just keep doing what he's been doing for 12 years.

Even if this plan were to implimented it would end in failure but it would dramatically decrease Saddam's control over the country so it may actually make a coupe more likely. That's a good thing.

Ted Striker · February 8, 2003, 20:02

FRANCE AND GERMANY ARE AFTER IRAQI OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait THE FRENCH ALREADY HAVE LARGE OIL COMPANIES *IN* IRAQ.

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:11

I think the jist of this proposal is that Hussein gets to remain in power in Iraq, as opposed to the U.S. unceremoniously removing him/forcing into exile/killing him/whatever. If given a choice between being ousted and/or killed, or keeping albeit diminished power, they are hoping he will choose the latter.

However, the plan is so humiliating to Iraq and presents a similar enough outcome that I am certain a megalomaniac like Hussein will opt for a bloody war (which he may really believe he can win) in which there is some maintenance of dignity. At the very least, he would get to go out in a bang.

Oerdin · February 8, 2003, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker

FRANCE AND GERMANY ARE AFTER IRAQI OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to admite Ted. The claim that France & Germany are after Iraqi oil has as much volidity as the claims the U.S. & U.K. are after Iraqi oil. There both complete nonsense.

Great analogy man.

Ted Striker · February 8, 2003, 20:21

Thanks.

Kyle · February 8, 2003, 20:28

So I guess after Saddam happily accepts this proposal, France and Germany will promptly arrest him for war crimes?

Shi Huangdi · February 8, 2003, 20:39

Thorn · February 8, 2003, 20:55

Fine whoever invade Iraq an conquer Iraq (I don't give a **** about the little rat hole of a country), but please don't go after Korea next.... please for all of our lives. The only reason I care about the war in Iraq is because it can lead to war in Korea.

Boris Godunov · February 8, 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn
Fine whoever invade Iraq an conquer Iraq (I don't give a **** about the little rat hole of a country), but please don't go after Korea next.... please for all of our lives. The only reason I care about the war in Iraq is because it can lead to war in Korea.

Don't be so angry. How about a hug?

Oerdin · February 8, 2003, 20:59

I contend that quickly stomping on Saddam will prove to Kim the west isn't one to be ****ed with. That my friend may very well me war is detered.

Zulu Elephant · February 8, 2003, 21:07

I really dont see what ANYONE could have against this plan.
Essentially, it is a plan to give the UN completely unfettered access to Iraq to see if WMD do, in fact, exist.
I especially dont see how anyone who is pro-war could be against it - if Saddam wont allow the plan to be implemented, surely thats ANOTHER breach in that he is obstructing UN monitoring if his weapons.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 8, 2003, 21:07

The real reason the US wants to invade is because it wants sweetheart deals for its oil companies. The real reason France doesn't want the US to invade is because it will lose its sweetheart deals with saddam.

MOBIUS · February 8, 2003, 21:09

Geez, it seems fine to piss all over the US' plans for war. But then they come out with this hogwash, I really don't see Saddam bending over to take it up the backside like this...

The only bit that makes sense is the increasing of weapons inspectors.

Demerzel · February 8, 2003, 21:19

Britain produces nearly 2 million barrels of oil a day, so we don't depend on going to war for our oil needs like the Americans and French

Felch · February 8, 2003, 21:22

We produce something like four times that amount, but we've got such huge Cheneys that we like picking fights anyhoo.

Demerzel · February 8, 2003, 21:53

you've also got 5 times the population, artifically low petrol prices and cars/industry that guzzles it.

Gangerolf · February 8, 2003, 21:56

is it so hard to write "and"?

Oerdin · February 8, 2003, 21:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
you've also got 5 times the population, artifically low petrol prices and cars/industry that guzzles it.

Hah, our petro is market priced. You folks are the ones who have artificially inflatied prices with outragous taxes. BTW 75% of our supply comes from North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico) and the remaining 25% is split up between the rest of the world. Plus even if we don't import another drop we have enough supply for one year already saved up.

I'd say we can kep driving our v-8s and weather the temporary price increases set off by the war.

Kontiki · February 8, 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I really dont see what ANYONE could have against this plan.
Essentially, it is a plan to give the UN completely unfettered access to Iraq to see if WMD do, in fact, exist.
I especially dont see how anyone who is pro-war could be against it - if Saddam wont allow the plan to be implemented, surely thats ANOTHER breach in that he is obstructing UN monitoring if his weapons.

It has nothing to do with being against the plan, it's that the plan is absolutely idiodic.

Hey, I've got another plan - we'll get the magic pink fairies of Venus to come down, lift Saddam up from his palace, and fly him into the sun, thereby averting any future conflict. How can you be against that?

Demerzel · February 8, 2003, 22:02

yeah drive those fuel guzzling polluting cars baby 'cos oil is certainly a nice renewable & clean energy and in limitless supply.

btw wtf is a "block"?

Adam Smith · February 9, 2003, 02:31

I think this is a reasonable alternative, especially if viewed as a work in process of negotiation, not a finished product.

Even the French have admitted that the Iraqis have ongoing WOMD, putting Iraq in violation of UN resolutions. (See de Villepin's statement that "Inspections have largely halted if not frozen WOMD programs.")

If the UN wants to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a serious alternative. Perhaps this can be it. Will Saddam accept it? I don't know. Will the UN actually enforce it? I hope so.

The only thing I found ridiculous about this plan, described in another article, was that the UN wanted Iraq to pass legislation banning production of WOMD on their soil.

Bereta_Eder · February 9, 2003, 02:35

Un solution means the US won't do it virtually alone and thus have absolut control on the post war oil exploitation.

With the game France has played she will lose her colonial like disgraceful contract the UN signed which gives her cheap oil from Iraq.

In a post war Iraq where the US would have done the job, they'll tell France to go **** herself.

That's the only thing France wants. To have the US promise her that her current oil contracts with Iraq will remain unchanged.

But that's what the US WANTS to change for its own benefit.