Chirac Must Make Quick Moves
Abdullah Al-Fawzan/Al-Watan
Although French President Jacques Chirac has pledged that he would use the veto power against the joint US-British proposal to launch a war against Iraq, he did not make any move to present a counter proposal.
However, I am confident that President Chirac can stop the war if he moves quickly to foil the American plan. Chirac has insisted that Iraq must be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction and that weapons inspectors and peace initiatives must be given more chance.
This is the main reason for his conflict with the Americans and British, who believe that there is no use sending in the inspectors because the Iraqi regime would not destroy the weapons through peaceful efforts and that the use of force is therefore necessary. The United States and Britain have already stated that they would go to war with or without a UN Security Council resolution.
If this is the situation, what should we expect from Chirac? Will his pronouncement that he would use the veto power prevent the war? What is the use of his moral stand if it does not?
In my opinion, Chirac must make a quick and serious move now. He should help the Americans and British find a way out of the impasse and propose solutions to prevent the war, without causing any embarrassment to both parties.
This is what we expect from France, not just the reaffirmation of its moral position as it stands by as a mere observer.
I would like to ask the French president to work earnestly for the issuance of a new Security Council resolution, with a new initiative that provides members of the Iraqi regime with a real chance to prove that there are no weapons of mass destruction in their country.
All members of the Security Council, including the United States and Britain, must also guarantee the protection of the Iraqi regime?s members for six months, which they will spend in France. During that period the administration of Iraq would be temporarily handed over to the United Nations and the Arab League through the international forces, which will be formed from the permanent members of the Security Council and some influential Arab countries.
During this six-month period, the UN weapons inspectors will continue their search for weapons of mass destruction and interviews with Iraqi scientists and others.
If proved that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was lying, the members of the Iraqi regime in France could be sent into exile. The United Nations and the Arab League would then supervise the formation of a new democratic government in Baghdad.
On the other hand, if the inspections proved there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the members of the regime will return to the country with full honor. They will also get an apology and the International Court of Justice will handle all the subsequent legal issues.
This is just an idea and there will be others, which President Chirac could put forward to end the present stalemate. What is important is that he must move quickly and give strong leadership to the anti-war movement to prevent an imminent outbreak of war.
Abdullah Al-Fawzan/Al-Watan
Although French President Jacques Chirac has pledged that he would use the veto power against the joint US-British proposal to launch a war against Iraq, he did not make any move to present a counter proposal.
However, I am confident that President Chirac can stop the war if he moves quickly to foil the American plan. Chirac has insisted that Iraq must be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction and that weapons inspectors and peace initiatives must be given more chance.
This is the main reason for his conflict with the Americans and British, who believe that there is no use sending in the inspectors because the Iraqi regime would not destroy the weapons through peaceful efforts and that the use of force is therefore necessary. The United States and Britain have already stated that they would go to war with or without a UN Security Council resolution.
If this is the situation, what should we expect from Chirac? Will his pronouncement that he would use the veto power prevent the war? What is the use of his moral stand if it does not?
In my opinion, Chirac must make a quick and serious move now. He should help the Americans and British find a way out of the impasse and propose solutions to prevent the war, without causing any embarrassment to both parties.
This is what we expect from France, not just the reaffirmation of its moral position as it stands by as a mere observer.
I would like to ask the French president to work earnestly for the issuance of a new Security Council resolution, with a new initiative that provides members of the Iraqi regime with a real chance to prove that there are no weapons of mass destruction in their country.
All members of the Security Council, including the United States and Britain, must also guarantee the protection of the Iraqi regime?s members for six months, which they will spend in France. During that period the administration of Iraq would be temporarily handed over to the United Nations and the Arab League through the international forces, which will be formed from the permanent members of the Security Council and some influential Arab countries.
During this six-month period, the UN weapons inspectors will continue their search for weapons of mass destruction and interviews with Iraqi scientists and others.
If proved that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was lying, the members of the Iraqi regime in France could be sent into exile. The United Nations and the Arab League would then supervise the formation of a new democratic government in Baghdad.
On the other hand, if the inspections proved there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the members of the regime will return to the country with full honor. They will also get an apology and the International Court of Justice will handle all the subsequent legal issues.
This is just an idea and there will be others, which President Chirac could put forward to end the present stalemate. What is important is that he must move quickly and give strong leadership to the anti-war movement to prevent an imminent outbreak of war.
