Chirac will not allow the United States and Britain to administer post-war Iraq

[Lancer]

Spiffor, you contradict yourself. You speak of "loot" the French want from rebuilding, and cost "tons of money" that US/UK would incur.

Which is it?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

Don't hesitate to use it again in the future, because he'll miss many more again. (this time I know where the reference comes from )

But OTOH, I think it would be far better for the stability in the region if UN was in charge of the reconstruction. I have posted long on the issue few days ago, so I'll be short here :
- UN-led reconstruction's funding will not be dependent on the financial priorities of the US, which can be pretty shortsighted before the voting.
- UN has a much higher experience in rebuilding countries, with a wide array of specialized and experienced services on construction, education, infrastructure, food, water, childhood etc. The US would have to start such agencies from scratch.
- UN has much more experience in looking for compromises, and this will be a needed feat in a country where Kurds, Shias and Sunnis will want to defend their interests, and where bordering countries like Turkey, Saudi or Iran will exert pressure too (not forgetting the US)
- UN is likely to pour more money in the long run than the US. Especially because it knows how ungrateful and long a reconstruction process can be.
- UN will be less open to clientelism from the factions, and should not give more aid to a faction that's more loyal. A US/UK led action would use any tool available to keep its legitimacy, including aid.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lancer
Spiffor, you contradict yourself. You speak of "loot" the French want from rebuilding, and cost "tons of money" that US/UK would incur.
Which is it?

France will be deprived of its former contracts with the Iraqi sate if US/UK rebuilds, and hence gets the authority of deciding who gets the oilfields.
For the greater sake of TotalFinaElf, it is necessary for Chirac to lower US/UK role in reconstruction, in order for the UN to write a splendid little paragraph "former contracts taken by the Iraqi State will remain".
A UN-led reconstruction would also limit the chances of installing a Washington's puppet regime.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet...

*DRose decides it's time for new sig material to use...*

[Lancer]

So, the US/UK won't incur such costs if they don't let the French in to force the new Iraqi government to accept contracts signed by a tyrant.

[faded glory]

FYI, there is already an interim government backed by the coalition. Its the Iraqi National Congress. The UN will have very little role in governing. The INC has said they will not honor French/Russian oil and telecom contracts under any conditions.


tough luck

[Drake Tungsten]

But OTOH, I think it would be far better for the stability in the region if UN was in charge of the reconstruction.

I completely agree, but Chirac's rhetoric is hurting the chances for UN involvement in a post-war Iraq. America and Britain are not going to beg the French for support, which is what Chirac (and Schroeder if reports are to be believed) really wants...

BTW, I'm flattered Dros...

[faded glory]

oh yes, the INC has made this a matter of public knowledge. They have said it many times since the passage of 1441

[Joseph]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Man, Chirac is just making his country look more irrelevant and foolish by the minute...

I tell you Chirac is worried that the US and British are going to find all of those photo of Chirac and Saddam getting it on.
Last week the editor in chief of US New and World report stated that when we find all of the paper on what France has been doing in Iraq, there is going to be a scandal in the French government.

[faded glory]

haha that would be great!

[Spiffor]

FG :
And there are absolutely no chances the INC is a puppet to the coalition.

Drake :
That might be true that Chirac is lowering the chances of the UN taking over. However, it is needed to make your position known before entering a bargaining. Don't forget this was at a EU meeting, not at an official UNSC speech.
Would there be no opposition to the US/UK taking over, the UN would have been completely screwed in the whole thing as well as anti-war countries : the UN would merely have rubberstamped the war afterwards, and more importantly, would have paid for a reconstruction masterminded by the US and its interests.
I know there is much hypocrisy from Chirac, to say the least, but no opposition whatsoever to US/UK's plan for the reconstruction would hurt pretty everyone except the US' interests.

[Odin]

Originally posted by faded glory
oh yes, the INC has made this a matter of public knowledge. They have said it many times since the passage of 1441

So thats why Chirac was being such a @sshole. He didn't want to loose the oil contracts. Chirac is really looking like and idiot. I can't belive Chirac cares more about oil than the Iraqi people, he is looking more and more like Bush.

[faded glory]

"FG :
And there are absolutely no chances the INC is a puppet to the coalition."

So? Who said puppets are a bad thing? (Post World War II ex.)

Besides hardly puppets. We have support the INC since the early 80's

[notyoueither]

Japan and SK are already signed on to help with reconstruction. I really doubt more help is needed, especially if a large part of the oil infrastructure is left intact.