Chirac's Saddam Connection

[YogsVR4]

By Thomas W. Murphy

French President Jacques Chirac's special relationship with Saddam Hussein goes back almost 30 years. As the French Foreign Minister in 1974, Chirac was instrumental in boosting France's diplomatic and economic ties with oil-rich Iraq. Chirac called Saddam Hussein "a personal friend" after Chirac and Hussein finalized the agreement for the construction of a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad; the reactor that was later bombed by Israel.

Chirac's long-standing relationship with Saddam Hussein and France's vast financial interests with the current Iraqi Government goes a long way in explaining France's seemingly inexplicable passion to keep Saddam Hussein in power.

France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The French-Iraqi connection started shortly after France pulled out of NATO in 1966.

Prior to the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, France was the chief supplier of military equipment to Israel. In fact, France helped Israel build its nuclear reactor at Dimona, supplied Israel with enriched uranium, and actively helped Israel develop nuclear weapons.

In the days leading up to the Arab-Israeli War, France abandoned Israel and threw its hat in with the Arabs nations. De Gaulle doubted the Israeli's could defeat the combined Arab nations and saw the coming war as an opportunity to extend French influence and cultivate relationships with the oil-rich Arab nations.

By the end of the 1970s France was second only to the Soviet Union as a supplier of both military and civilian equipment to the Iraqis. The trend continued throughout the 1980s. France strongly backed Iraq during its war with Iran. Unlike other western governments who gave minimal help to Iraq hoping to stave off an Iraqi defeat and maintain the status quo; France supplied Iraq with Mirage Fighters, Super Etendard aircraft with Exocet missiles, and sophisticated munitions.

The Gulf War of 1991 provided little more than a hiccup in French-Iraqi relations. By 1994, France was calling for a loosening of UN sanctions and along with Russia attempting to short-circuit UNSCOM at every step. France pushed to allow Iraq to sell more oil. When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. From 1997 on, France fought to get the UN sanctions lifted entirely.

Last May, under intense pressure from France and Russia, the UN loosened restrictions on high-tech equipment, enabling Iraq to obtain a broad range of equipment with potential military applications; ranging from agricultural sprayers that can be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons to neutron generators that can be used as crude nuclear triggers and are compatible with a known Iraqi design for a gun-implosion type nuclear device.

Hundreds of French firms do business with Iraq. France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq last year under the oil-for-food program; the most of any nation. French giants Alcatel and Renault do a booming business in Iraq, and French oil firms hold contracts with Saddam Hussein's government estimated at over $60 billion for oil exploration and development; oil contracts that cannot be worked until UN sanctions are lifted.

In light of France's financial interests and longstanding ties to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, its hardly surprising that France opposes military action to depose Saddam Hussein. A new Iraqi government might not be inclined to honor oil contracts with Saddam's old buddies.

And then again, as one U.S. intelligence expert somewhat facetiously put it, "France will jump on board with the U.S. the minute their agents in Baghdad get done shredding all evidence of their illicit arms sales to Iraq."

[1985_BMW318i]

I'm so glad to see that posted here. Of course Some of the liberals will come to France and Russia's defense. This thread will undoubtedly get very long within 24 hours

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
I'm so glad to see that posted here. Of course Some of the liberals will come to France and Russia's defense. This thread will undoubtedly get very long within 24 hours

That’s ok. I'd be surprised if it didn't generate some responses. Its just surprising how vehement people are about the whole war/oil argument but only see it as a US issue. Somehow Chirac is being played up as this humanitarian good guy when his history and actions. Based on the arguments by certain people here, you’d think they would be on this guys case as well. Not about necessarily going to war but of supporting Sadam in the past and conveniently overlooking atrocities when it suited him.

Just in case it hasn’t been noticed yet. Any discussion about another countries/leaders politics gets twisted by a few people here to be in relation to the US or about the US. No criticism of another actions ever stands on its own and up to its own scrutiny.

[Stefanel1]

Hello !

Of course, France do have interests and economic links with Iraq : Renault, Alcatel and overall TOTAL-Fina-Elf (one of the leader oil company).
We have to be aware that we (I'm French ) have also, of course, our profits. But if France (as Russia, Germany, etc.) are against this war, it's also because Hans Blix specified that this war could be avoided because Hussein was (at least) cooperative with the United Nations. And this war represents some problems and risks, destabilising worldwide economy and stock market, risks -and more !- for Iraqis populations, etc.
But no need to say that Saddam is an awful president who makes its own population die. And if war is the only issue, so, ok, we'll have to do it. But the UN are not agree today with the american view. And if Americans want to go now in Irak, it's because more than 200 000 soldiers are there and they cost a lot.

But over this different analisys, there is the problem of the relationship between France and the USA. And it would be a shame that the long friendship between these two countries was broken or at least spoiled.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


That’s ok. I'd be surprised if it didn't generate some responses. Its just surprising how vehement people are about the whole war/oil argument but only see it as a US issue. Somehow Chirac is being played up as this humanitarian good guy when his history and actions. Based on the arguments by certain people here, you’d think they would be on this guys case as well. Not about necessarily going to war but of supporting Sadam in the past and conveniently overlooking atrocities when it suited him.

Just in case it hasn’t been noticed yet. Any discussion about another countries/leaders politics gets twisted by a few people here to be in relation to the US or about the US. No criticism of another actions ever stands on its own and up to its own scrutiny.

It's very easy to factor America into most of the arguments that you throw up,because more often than not,if Iraq or France has committted an injustice,America has' been there and done that' too.America has poured resources and support into Saddam's regime when it felt that doing so was an advantage,all the while ignoring the very factors that it has now decided are an injustice that needs to be dealt with.I'm pretty tired of the few vocal Americans who like to criticize the historical failures and injustices in current affairs of every other nation while totally ignoring the massive shortcomings of their own.

[Moppie]

What is your point here Yogs?


Its ok for one county to invade another because of economic interests, but its not ok for another country to speak against such actions because of thier own economic interests?

All it does is legtimise oposition to the war based on the idea that the US is only doing it for the money and power, and is useing the disarmament of an already impotetent nation as an excuse.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by Moppie
What is your point here Yogs?


Its ok for one county to invade another because of economic interests, but its not ok for another country to speak against such actions because of thier own economic interests?

All it does is legtimise oposition to the war based on the idea that the US is only doing it for the money and power, and is useing the disarmament of an already impotetent nation as an excuse.

My point is that all arguements around here of a political nature always route to what the US does or doesn't do. When a topic is on the US it stays there. When the topic is on someplace else - it gets rerouted to the US. The topics apparently cannot stand on their own.

I am not saying that the US should not be criticized. I am also not saying that Chirac is wrong for looking out for his own (France's) economic intrests. I am also saying its disengenous to claim that the US is doing this only about oil and believe that those opposing a war (heads of state) have virtuous reasons.

The article brought up points that Chirac may have some personal intrests in this beyond just the economic. He has had a personal relationship with Saddam. If someone doesn't care that it may be affecting his behavior then fine. But what the US has done in the past had/has no bearing on his relationship with Saddam.

[Stefanel1]

I'm not sure that Jacques Chirac and Saddam are friends.... there are economic interest, as you said, so they're friends from this point of view. As some American préesidents were friends with extremists in South America for example.

A little pic to make the atmosphere cooler