Dan Knecht's article "Bete Noire France" (The Dartmouth, Feb. 13) includes erroneous information regarding France's position on the Iraqi issue. Although many Americans are angry over France's opposition to the war, the French ultimately reserve the right to favor peace over war. Is there something inherently wrong about that? Indeed, Mr. Knecht's labeling the French as "wimps" shows just how little he understands about French opposition: the French don't support the war because they feel it is unnecessary when more pressing threats exist (i.e., bin Laden and North Korea), and they feel a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is illegal.
The French do not see Iraq as a threat and they have very little reason to think otherwise. Unlike Edouard Daladier's appeasement policies concerning the real Nazi threat during the World War II, the Iraqi "threat" is but a figment of Bush's imagination. We all know how easily America crushed Saddam Hussein's forces in the 1991 Gulf War, and that was despite the fact that Iraq's army was then considered the fifth best in the world. The Gulf War, more than a decade of sanctions and the continual Allied bombardment of Iraqi installations have had the combined effect of castrating Iraq's offensive military capability (as well as starved his nation). Furthermore, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program has never fully recovered from these very same problems listed above. In addition, contrary to what Mr. Bush would like Americans to think, the Iraqi WMD program does not pose a significant threat to the United States because Mr. Hussein has no effective means of delivering the agents. Will Saddam give them to bin Laden? Of course not, especially because bin Laden himself never trusted Iraq's regime -- and vice-versa. Saddam's WMD are not "for our destruction," as Mr. Knecht erroneously asserts; rather, they are meant to keep him in power. There is no "war machine" in the Gulf (except America's), so there is no Hitler-Hussein analogy to be made.
I would argue that North Korea, not Iraq, poses a more significant threat to the United States because it may already have up to two nuclear weapons and the missile technology to deliver them. The Japanese have rightfully stated that they reserve the right to attack North Korea if they feel threatened by Pyongyang's missiles. Maybe we need Korean War II, not Gulf War II.
A war against Iraq would be illegal because it would violate international norms put in place since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, including the idea of individual sovereign states. The U.N. Charter itself explicitly states that preemptive attacks against any nation can only be justified if said nation poses a significant "clear and present danger." Mr. Bush has not presented evidence to label Iraq as such a threat; furthermore, Iraq's terrible use of WMD a full 15 years ago was not even condemned by then-President Ronald Reagan. If you want to talk about human rights and such, let's not forget the Chinese crackdown on Tiananmen Square (during the Bush the First presidency) and other Chinese violations (to which America has responded by giving the Chinese membership in the WTO).
Moreover, Mr. Knecht's argument over France's intentions is a bit off the mark. France (and let us not forget Germany, Belgium and NATO outsiders Russia, China and possibly seven other Security Council members) rejected America's request to defend Turkey because Turkey is currently not being threatened in any way, shape or form. If NATO had approved beefing up Turkish defenses, it could have sent the world the wrong message: namely, that all NATO nations agree with preemptive strikes. It's that simple. Moreover, if France and Russia just wanted to protect their Iraqi oil interests, keeping Hussein in power would not be the logical thing to do. Would not a pro-Western regime do more to satisfy French oil interests? Obviously, the answer is yes, so it is incorrect to assume that France is only doing this for oil. America, on the other hand, will directly benefit from a pro-Western Iraqi government. U.S. laws currently restrict American companies from drilling Iraqi oil. However, what if a more "favorable" regime were in place in Baghdad? Hmm, those "blood for oil" arguments sound more convincing already.
American lawmakers can say what they like concerning French -- and Russian, Chinese, and German -- opposition to any war. Vast segments of America's population, not to mention the majority of the rest of the world's people (including the United Kingdom), support continued U.N. inspections in Iraq. As such, France is only echoing the wishes of the world's people. It is their world as much as it is ours, so Americans such as Congressman Peter King should be wise enough not to insult the opinions of other nations.
President Bush spoke during his campaign about a foreign policy based on American "humility." So far, America has pushed the world to the brink of war. It is time that the supposed "peace-loving" side of American foreign policy be shown.
