The Germans are up in arms – or some of them anyway – about Jacques Chirac’s saber rattling over “states” that sponsor nuclear terrorism. [Who could that be?-ed. I dunno. Estonia?] According to Deutsche Welle:
Chirac’s threat of a nuclear response to any terrorist attack on his country prompted widespread criticism in diplomatic circles in Berlin.
The Christian Democrats (CDU) distanced themselves from Chirac’s statements. CDU foreign policy expert Andreas Schockenhoff, referring to the international community’s ongoing efforts to prevent countries such as Iran from developing nuclear weapons, suggested that Chirac was not being helpful.
“We have to convince these countries that their situation isn’t going to get any better if they possess nuclear weapons,” Schockenhoff told Reuters in Berlin. “I don’t think Chirac’s approach is really the best way to lead this debate and to increase pressure on Iran.”
The Social Democrats’ foreign policy expert, Gert Weisskirchen, told Spiegel Online that Chirac had acted rashly.
“This is a unilateral declaration on the part of the French president, and it’s something he ought to have discussed with his European partners first,” Weisskirchen said.
Quel horreur! For the first time in a decade or so Chirac reacts like a real person and the Germans get into a flutter. You may be relieved to know:
Germany’s Green party called on the German government to demand Chirac to retract his threat. The Greens’ defense expert, Winfried Nachtwei, called Chirac’s statements “risky” and “irresponsible.”
“The Greens’ defense expert.” Now there’s an interesting concept.
As a Frenchman, Chirac will fold in a day or so. He’ll relieve the probability of an attack on France in the first place by maybe offerring to expel all French Jews or something just as dhimmitudinal. The Force Frappe will never be used, unless it’s against the US.
It’s official.
France acknowledges that negotiations with Iran won’t work.
It’s MAD time.
Been a long time since I had anything positive to say about Chirac, anyway Go Jacques!
I would like to hope that Chirac means this threat seriously, because some tough talk by someone other than the United States or Israel could be helpful at this point. A couple of comments:
1. The French population is lapping this stuff up. They love it! Fabius (socialist party) has expressed his agreement with France’s position. The only domestic objections so far have been voiced by the moribund French communist party.
2. No criticism and some editorializing support from major media. This from the daily Le Figaro caught my eye:
“France has always refused, in contrast to the United States (emphasis added), to envisage recourse to nuclear weapons against terrorist groups. On the other hand, France reserves this right against States that would have recourse to terrorist means”.
Translation: France has simply adapted its position towards an (imagined) more threatening U.S. policy.
3. Less reassuring is that Chirac could have said substantially the opposite – ruled out any threat of use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances as dangerous and escalatory – and the French press would have lapped it up just as easily and praised Chirac for his “responsible” discoursse, while contrasting and criticizing the “irresponsible” and “inflammatory” American position (whether imagined or not).
Indeed, I am still convinced that if the Chirac government had taken a hard line stance against Saddam Hussein alongside the United States (a far more compelling political case, the French people and nationalist media would have fallen into line like the sheep that they are.
4. Also, Chirac did not mention Iran (though he definitely had Iran in his sights) and laid out this strategy in terms of broad unilateral French policy. At the same time, he mentioned France’s role in protecting its allies (read: EU allies), continuing a theme introduced last summer when Alliot-Marie stated that France would put the EU under its nuclear umbrella. This could mean:
- France is trying to use its nuclear dissuasion force as a pillar for setting itself up as a “counterweight” to the United States with the rest of the EU allied around it,
- France is actually willing and ready to concede the existence of a nuclear Iran, relying primarily on deterrence (rather than Bushian pre-emptive action) to protect itself.
5. What is really needed is a joint French-British-U.S. political (if not military) alliance with as little interference from Russia and China as possible. I’m taking a wait-and-see approach in the case of France on whether this will emerge in the case of Iran.
Remember, France has no friends, no allegiances, only circumstantial alliances of convenience. Until recently, the French establishment (political parties, media, etc.) have representing Iran, together with China, Venezuela and Cuba, as relatively wonderful places for French businessess to invest, tourists to visit, and generally to do business with. This benign treatment of Iran as a “normal” “nice” country has only recently disappeared from the press and radio shows.
In short, France is so bipolar and unprincipled that I can’t attribute too much significane to an isolated statement from Chirac. This is a good start, but I would like to see France dig itself in a bit more on its anti-Tehran rhetoric. Chirac may well be holding a dagger behind his back with America’s name written on it. It wouldn’t be the first time.
I agree with Gabriel Gonzalez. This is much ado about nothing. Terrorists don’t generally get caught with any evidence directly linking them to their state sponsors and Osama Bin Laden is a free agent. Chirac is only playing to the voting public and I understand that it’s coming up election time in France.
Roger,
You wrote:
“The Greens’ defense expert.” Now there’s an interesting concept…
Actually, the defense doctrine of the Green Party was formulated in the early 1970′s, and was most clearly expressed in the pithy phrase:
Run away!!!
///Monty Python’s Holy Grail
More soberly, there’s an interesting post and discussion over at Belmont Club on the problem (if there is one) of “suitcase nukes.”
Jamie Irons
Roger,
There appears to be a glitch in the preview function of your new commenting software, at least for a user who (like me) employs the Macintosh version of Firefox.
Jamie Irons
Actually, the greens’s defense policy features the heavy use of ladybugs.
Or is it praying mantises?
A glitch in the preview system for me, too, by the way, and I don’t use Macintosh.
I wish I could remember who said this, but a few years ago I heard someone say that if Paris Illinois was attacked the French would demand that the US immediately go to the UN for recourse…whereas if Paris France was attacked some city in the Muslim world would be a smoldering heap before the dust settled in Paris.
Maybe there is truth to that.
“Or is it praying mantises?”
I see Neo-NeoCon, that you can express volumes in a few words after all
The rhetoric coming out of Paris has little to do with international nuclear policy. IN the face of drastic budget deficits and calls for reduced spending on the military (nukes take up 10% of French military spending) Chirac has needed a way to justify his nuclear deterrent for a while…
What better way to do this than to suggest a wmd strike by terrorists on French soil. Clearly, if terrorists were to acquire a wmd capability, France would likely be far down on the list of preferred targets.
I think waterdragon52 has the right idea. Threatening to nuke a state that sponsored a terrorist attack is, basically, an empty threat. It’s always possible to say that we don’t really know where an attack came from; terrorists cultivate that ‘deniability’, giving France an escape clause any time she needs one. Chirac’s a smart cookie.
Some of his colleagues, on the other hand, are not:
“We have to convince these countries that their situation isn’t going to get any better if they possess nuclear weapons,” Schockenhoff told Reuters in Berlin. “I don’t think Chirac’s approach is really the best way to lead this debate and to increase pressure on Iran.”
The naivete in this statement would be funny, except that I suspect he actually means it. You want to persuade rogue regimes and terrorist sponsors not to develop nuclear weapons? Over herbal tea, perhaps? With a few hundred million Euros under the table for seasoning?
Personally, I think that threatening Iran with nuclear attack is an excellent way to “increase pressure on Iran”. It’s unfortunate that Chirac didn’t really mean it, and won’t really do it.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Roger:
Empty talk. The Mullahs act. The West talks about acting.
“The Greens’ defense expert.” Yes, it has that charming oxymoronic purity that I saw recently on a restaurant menu – “Vegan Delight”.
How about a 2 for 1.
Set off a small nuclear device some where in france, leaving a clear trail back to Iran.
Then let the french act.