On my weekly promenade down Main Street, a throng of Hanoverians heartily greeted me. At first, I believed them to be overzealous Winter Carnival enthusiasts. But as I approached closer to the mass, I noticed placards and signs hoisted into the air. Were they protesting the politically incorrect Gandalf? Or perhaps, they were joining in the struggle against the new campus keg policy? Maybe delusional swim team demonstrators? No, they came with one purpose -- to ruin my Winter Carnival.
Well, maybe not. But they did come toting signs ranging from "No War," to "Oil for Blood," "Make Friends, not Enemies" and "Think about the Children." I saw people trying to make an anemic pacifistic point on Iraq -- an effort recently taken up by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. With the backing of Jacques Chirac and a wimpy French public, de Villepin took it upon himself to undermine the United States' and Britain's goal of international safety.
Mais pourquoi? His reasons are more convoluted than an Andre Gide novel. They are as broad as they are vague. At a recent news conference in New Delhi, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin scoffed President Bush's "the game is over" comment by proudly stating, "The Iraq crisis is not a game" and "it is not over." So, Monsieur Raffarin, what is it that Saddam Hussein is doing? It seems to me that Iraq is playing the world's longest hide and seek game -- 12 years and going strong. Pretty impressive, to say the least. Even India's Prime Minister chimed in: "I don't think the game is over." Quite frankly, India's government should take a hard stance on the proliferation of weapons to terrorists, knowing their own struggle against Islamic extremists. Raffarin continued, stating, "There can be no happy war, no legitimate war. War is the last resort."
These statements remind me of France's very own Edouard Daladier. What next -- peace in our time? Raffarin also added that a war with powerful Iraq would be costly. "Diplomacy must be pursued." What infuriates me more is that when Saddam Hussein boasted that the "Columbia shuttle disaster occurred by the will of Allah," the French were tight lipped. Not a single word in defense of the United States, Israel and their intrepid astronauts. Who's side is France on, anyway?
While America pursues space exploration for the betterment of man, Saddam seeks out nuclear and biological weapons for our destruction -- a little known fact in France, I assume. France is the first country to disagree with America. Some people chalk this recalcitrance up to old-fashioned Gallic pride. I don't buy it. France's affronts do not stop at mere verbal tiffs. A few days ago, the French, with backing of Germany and Belgium, blocked a NATO resolution to beef up Turkey's defenses. It seems to me that the French government is taking Hussein's side. Perhaps the Chirac government is concerned about the well-being of the Iraqi people. More likely, however, is that the French are protecting their stake in the oil industry around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Both France and Russia have highly lucrative oil deals with the Iraqi government. It would be a shame if the Iraqi government cancelled these agreements.
I am proud to say that a fellow Long Islander has taken a vocal stance against the French. Congressman Peter King called France a "second-rate country" that should be excluded from future defensive alliances. Although a bit bombastic, King has a point. France has already delayed successful military actions in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s. Could this be France's third strike? Peter King is right -- we need to cut down France's obstructionist ways.
A few days ago, de Villepin unveiled a new plan to avert a war. It includes doubling the numbers of inspectors, increasing aerial surveillance and freezing weapons sites by installing U.N. guards. These increased measures may very well slow the pace of Saddam's war machine, but it in fact proves the world's suspicions: more U.N. intervention in Iraq is needed simply because these inspections aren't working. As Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "If Saddam bows to the U.N.'s demands and cooperates promptly, what is the need for greater numbers of inspectors?" Even Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, has admitted the futility of his inspections. Hussein's obfuscation of international law is evident to the leaders of the world -- but not to the leaders of France.
Peter King is right on target. America and her allies must confront obfuscators and obstructionists head on. Interestingly, the King family is so upset by France's Iraq stance that they have cancelled an upcoming trip to Paris. I, however, still plan on going on my Spring term Paris FSP.
