France-- see, I told you so!

For my 2,000th post-- I wanted to resurrect the speech given by the (then) French Foreign Minister to the UN on the eve of US war with Iraq. BushCo, already bent on war as we know from the Downing Street Memos, of course chose to ignore these powerful words. And our smug, complicit press chose to lampoon and lambaste France despite the great sense that these words made. "Boycott the French!" "Freedom Fries!"

My God, if they had only listened! Everything that de Villepin predicts about war with Iraq has come true, from the observation that weapons inspections are working to the warnings about the carnage and chaos that will follow premature military intervention in Iraq.

Mods-- this address to the UN is constitutes "public record" and thus is not subject to the same copyright restrictions that apply to news articles, books, op-eds, etc.



Speech by Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, before the United Nations Security Council

New-York, March 7, 2003

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2003/villepin_un030703.asp

Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Ministers,
Ambassadors,

<snip>

What have the inspectors told us? That for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating with them. That substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles and their equipment. That new prospects are opening up with the recent questioning of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed. And that indeed is the key to resolution 1441.

With solemnity, therefore, before this body, I would like to ask a question—the very same question being asked by people all over the world: Why should we today engage in a war with Iraq?

And I would also like to ask: Why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed, at any price, by force when we can succeed peacefully?

War is always an acknowledgement of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable.

Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences, let us measure the effects of our decision. We all see it: In Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction.

<snip>

What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991. That we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country.

Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad. The adoption of resolution 1441, the assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic actions by the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement—all of these common efforts are bearing fruit. The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve.

<snip>

The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections. We agree to timetables and to an accelerated calendar. But we cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation. That would mean war. It would lead the Security Council to relinquish its responsibilities. By imposing a deadline of a few days, would we be reduced to seeking a pretext for war?

As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force. Let us consider the anguish and the waiting of people all around the world, in all our countries, from Cairo to Rio, from Algiers to Pretoria, from Rome to Jakarta.

Indeed, the stakes transcend the case of Iraq alone.

Let us look at things lucidly: We are defining a method to resolve crises. We are choosing to define the world we want our children to live in.

That is true in the case of North Korea, in the case of Southern Asia, where we have not yet found the path toward a lasting resolution of disputes. It is true in the case of the Mideast: Can we continue to wait while acts of violence multiply?

These crises have many roots: They are political, religious, economic. Their origins lie in the tumult of centuries. There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. That is not France's conviction. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse rancor and hatred, fuel a clash of identities, of cultures—something that our generation has, precisely, a prime responsibility to avoid.

To those who believe that war would be the quickest way to disarm Iraq, I say it will establish gulfs and create wounds that are long in healing. And how many victims will it bring, how many grieving families?

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war.

- Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship and the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. That is not the objective of resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way to bring about democracy. It would encourage dangerous instability, there and elsewhere.

- Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it, and we could then be faced with a new wave of violence. Let us beware of playing into the hands of those who want a clash of civilizations, a clash of religions.

- Or is it, finally, a matter of remolding the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability. Not to mention that in Iraq itself, the large number of communities and religions already represents the danger of a potential break-up.

We all have the same demands: more security, more democracy. But there is another logic beside that of force, another path, other solutions.

We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America, struck in the heart. I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.

But there is nothing today that indicates a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: No.


<snip>



Embassy of France in the United States - March 7, 2003

I told you so and kiss my ass in French?

I believe they both are in order...

Je vous ai dit ainsi.

et

Embrassez mon âne

it's extremely to remember to others and to remind ourselves how long we and others have been trying to shake this country out of it's insanity.

revisiting this speech revisiting pnac and othere -- all i can say is

BRAVO!

:applause:

K & R

the day after de Villepin's address to the UN.

The speech made so much sense-- like a friend trying to talk another friend out of making the biggest mistake of his life.

At that point I still had a vague hope that the build-up to war was all a big bluff on Bush's part. War with Iraq would have been such an act of political, economic and moral depravity that I just didn't think it was possible.

WRONG!

Just taking more trips down memory lane, here. I'm recalling all the wonderful things we said and did to the French, after they tried to talk us out of a senseless war.


Americans Just Say 'Non' to French Products
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
By Amy C. Sims

<snip>

U.S. lawmakers are also eager to remind the French that Americans bailed them out in both World Wars, at a cost of tens of thousands of lives. Some in Congress are even pursuing possible trade restrictions.

Rep. H. James Saxton, a New Jersey Republican, has drafted a resolution that calls for a U.S. boycott of the Paris Air Show this spring. "If fails to find a way to cooperate, we'll urge U.S. citizens, companies and the military to forego participation," Saxton told WorldNetDaily.com.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he'd like to target bottled French mineral water and wine. He has instructed Republican colleagues to determine whether Congress should pass laws that would impose new health standards on bottles of Evian and other French waters. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, France is the leading exporter of water to the United States and sold 65 million gallons last year.

It's not the first time Americans have boycotted French products. Back in 1985 when the French would not allow U.S. military planes to fly over their airspace on their way to bomb Libya, U.S. consumers boycotted industries, including fashion, food and wine. And a similar boycott happened in 1995 and 1996 when France refused to stop testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.

<snip>

Whether the boycott impacts the French economy or not, Americans from Congress to Cubbie's Restaurant are saying the French can "faux-get" our future support and money. Rowland said one freedom fry eater told him: "On Sept. 11 if a plane had slammed into the Eiffel Tower I guarantee the French would've been on the phone to the Americans saying, 'Please, we need help.' It's time for them to step up to the plate and help us."

<snip>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78921,00.html

not all Americans were fooled