Rice Says France, Germany Took NATO 'Hostage'

[Dreadsox]

Rice Says France, Germany Took NATO 'Hostage'
Wed May 7, 2003 07:46 AM ET




MADRID (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disparaged France for taking NATO "hostage" over Iraq and for threatening smaller countries with reprisals if they backed Washington's war to oust Saddam Hussein.
"Nobody should take NATO hostage," Rice said in an interview with four Spanish newspapers published on Wednesday.

"It was very unsettling that Germany and France tried to prevent NATO from reinforcing the security of Turkey. There were many unsettling things in that process," she told Spanish national newspapers El Pais, El Mundo, ABC and La Vanguardia.

Her comments were reported in Spanish.

While saying that France and Germany would remain U.S. allies, Rice also said France did more to divide Europe over Iraq than did the United States.

"The United States did not divide the Europeans...It wasn't us that threatened smaller countries with reprisals nor tried to shut up the countries of Eastern Europe," Rice said in reference to France.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, France actively lobbied smaller countries on the U.N. Security Council to reject a resolution that would have approved the use of force.

French President Jacques Chirac also took to task future members of the European Union from Eastern Europe for backing the United States on Iraq when they could have remained silent.

In what was seen as the biggest crisis within NATO for decades, France and Germany delayed a military aid package for Turkey that was meant to bolster its defenses before the war in Iraq.

 

[STING2]

Dr. Rice is one of the reasons I'll be voting for Bush in 2004.

 

[melon]

Bush's failure at domestic policy is why I refuse to vote for Bush in 2004.

To Rice's credit, she is a very intelligent and professional woman who is great at covering up Bush's blunders and towing the administration line. However, I do not support her bosses' endless war.

Melon

 

[deep]

Rice Says France, Germany Took NATO 'Hostage'
Wed May 7, 2003 07:46 AM ET




MADRID (Reuters) - .

Her comments were reported in Spanish.

While saying that France and Germany would remain U.S. allies, Rice also said France did more to divide Europe over Iraq than did the United States.

"...It wasn't us threatened smaller countries" Rice said .

 

[deep]

Sting,


You have said both Powell and Rice are reasons you will vote Bush 2004.

Do you support affirmative action?

 

[STING2]

Deep,

I strongly support Affirmative Action. But what does that have to do with supporting Bush because of Powell and Rice?

 

[deep]

Sting,

Powell and Rice are good people that would not be in their current positions without affirmative action.

The President?s solicitor general is working against affirmative action.

I believe the majority of the people that support Bush do not support affirmative action.

When they tout Powell and Rice, I find it ironic.

 

[Electric Blue]

"It wasn't us that threatened smaller countries with reprisals nor tried to shut up the countries of Eastern Europe," Rice said in reference to France.

That is indeed a hoot.

 

[STING2]

Electric Blue,

France did threaten eastern european countries telling them to be good boys and stay in line with the French position or risk not getting into the EU.

France, Germany, and Belgium also attempted to prevent Turkey from having the capability to stop Iraqi Ballistic missiles before the war.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

STING,
Since you seem to be so strongly opposed to any 'bullying' of Eastern European countries which may or not have occured, I wondered how you felt about the United States threats to Yemen prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Were they acceptable, and if so, why?

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"Since you seem to be so strongly opposed to any 'bullying' of Eastern European countries which may or not have occured, I wondered how you felt about the United States threats to Yemen prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Were they acceptable, and if so, why?"

For the record, these things did happen. Its been widely publicized. The USA decided to remove the economic aid package it had for Yemen because of it opposed US moves to reverse Iraq's brutal aggression against Kuwait. The USA has the right to stop sending US taxpayers money at any time, for any reason it chooses. The USA only has a limited amount of money in its foreign aid budget and it would be stupid to send it to a country that is opposed to the UNs attempts to reverse Iraqi aggression when it could go to someone else who would appreciate it more and definitely needs it.

In the French case, were talking about letting countries into an Economic Union. If the French wanted to withhold sending its own money to the country that is different.

 

[Klaus]

STING2/Fizzi: both sides, France and US played a ugly game to get their support in other countries.

 

[Electric Blue]

Electric Blue,

France did threaten eastern european countries telling them to be good boys and stay in line with the French position or risk not getting into the EU.

I know that, but that?s not the point I was trying to make. And so what if Chirac said Eastern Europe risked not getting into the EU almost three months ago? He DID sign the EU enlargement & accession treaty last month in Athens, didn't he, and I don't think that was against his will. That doesn't change the fact that I didn't find it smart of Chirac to say that (maybe he took lessons at the Donald Rumsfeld School of Diplomacy, who knows?), just as I didn't find it a smart move of those 8 Eastern Europe countries to simply side with the US on the subject of Iraq, without even consulting their future EU partners, and all this one month before the enlargement treaty would be signed... - bite the hand that will feed you, y'know. No wonder Chirac - whose country has contributed a lot to the EU - was seriously pissed off. Sure these Eastern Europe countries have every right to express their opinion on Iraq and act out their own foreign policy, but it can't be a coincidence they ALL happen to share the same opinion.

But anyway, I'm not here to talk about Chirac - I found that hypocrite and holier-than-thou attitude of Condoleezza Rice very funny. For crying out loud, the US openly offered Turkey a few million dollars in exchange for the use of their airports in the Iraq war, why wouldn't they secretly try to bribe other and smaller countries for their support? Some Eastern Europe countries could use that money very well. And of course the US would never dare to try and shut up small countries which happen to have a dissenting opinion!? That's simply laughable - does Belgium qualify as a small country? Since my country temporarily blocked a decision to send military assistance to Turkey, we've got nothing but "shut up 'cause we saved your ass in WWII" from the US. The US ambassador to Belgium has threatened to move NATO HQ from Brussels because of our stance on the Iraqi war. Not to mention the immense pressure that was put on our PM to keep the airways open for US military transports before and during the war. The US has threatened to impose economic (or other?) sanctions on France, why wouldn't they use the same tactics against a smaller and less powerful country, say, Belgium?? And since when is it OK to impose sanctions on a country, be it big or small, that disagreed with the US, something they had every right to do?

France, Germany, and Belgium also attempted to prevent Turkey from having the capability to stop Iraqi Ballistic missiles before the war.

Um, once and for all: this was never about whether we should send military assistance to Turkey, it was about when we should send the military back-up. Of course the Bush administration has done everything to make it seem France, Germany and Belgium were simply unwilling to help to a fellow NATO member. At the time the decision was taken, at the beginning of February, Hans Blix had yet to present his second report to the UN Security Council on February 14, so Iraq couldn't have been attacked before that date, and there was no immediate threat to Turkey, either. France, Germany and Belgium thought it was too soon to send military help to Turkey. Even Turkey understood the decision to delay military aid (which was later given the green light, by the way, but everyone seems to have forgotten that) and had no problems with it whatsoever - because they weren't too happy with an attack on Iraq anyway, and perhaps they didn't expect any severe threat from Iraq? Granted, I had my doubts about Belgium?s decision to delay military assistance (and the consequences it would produce for this small country), but my doubts evaporated when it became clear that it wasn't Iraq that threatened Turkey, but Turkey that threatened to send troops into northern Iraq, which prompted Colin Powell to intervene and tell Turkey to hold back. Turkey never needed those Patriot missiles, or, maybe they did: to take down a few lost US missiles that landed on Turkish ground...

I disagree with everything Rice says in the article, but I'm not really in the mood to reply to her statements, because it wouldn't change anything, and it's no secret the neocons in Washington hate Europe and everything it stands for. The fact that the Bush administration keeps rehashing an incident that took place three months ago shows they're not interested in rebuilding diplomatic ties that were broken because of the war, but instead severing them. Sad, very sad.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

For the record, these things did happen. Its been widely publicized. The USA decided to remove the economic aid package it had for Yemen because of it opposed US moves to reverse Iraq's brutal aggression against Kuwait. The USA has the right to stop sending US taxpayers money at any time, for any reason it chooses. The USA only has a limited amount of money in its foreign aid budget and it would be stupid to send it to a country that is opposed to the UNs attempts to reverse Iraqi aggression when it could go to someone else who would appreciate it more and definitely needs it.

I know they happened, that's why I asked your thoughts on it! It just seems strange that you justify the United States bullying countries into voting in line with the US in the Security Council, and yet are opposed to such bullying when carried out by another nation.

I've always been optimistic about foreign aid allocations though: I think it'd be great if countries gave aid in order to help others and not in order to bribe them. That said, I should know that's impossible, given that over one third of the United States' aid goes to Israel (a country with a GDP comparable to all other 'first world' countries) whilst Africa is struggling just to provide clean water to its people.

It's probably hopelessly idealistic to imagine a world where the fortunate help the less fortune in the spirit of simple human decency and not in the spirit of bribery, but who said there was anything wrong with idealism?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

STING2/Fizzi: both sides, France and US played a ugly game to get their support in other countries.

I agree and it was wrong of both countries to do so. I'm just confused by the idea that bullying is justifiable when carried out by the United States but unacceptable when carried out by France.

 

[verte76]

I agree and it was wrong of both countries to do so. I'm just confused by the idea that bullying is justifiable when carried out by the United States but unacceptable when carried out by France.

I don't think it's acceptable no matter who does it. It's not right, period. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Electric Blue]

I don't think it's acceptable no matter who does it. It's not right, period. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes. I want to emphasize that I don't like what Chirac said about Eastern Europe, but I understand where he was coming from. And he made up for it by signing the EU enlargement treaty in Athens, and I think diplomatic ties with Eastern Europe are back to normal - which I'm very glad of.


PS: I won't be here for a week or so, in case anyone misses me.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"It just seems strange that you justify the United States bullying countries into voting in line with the US in the Security Council, and yet are opposed to such bullying when carried out by another nation."

I don't think you understood what I said. I tried to demonstrate the difference between what France did and what the USA did. The USA after the vote was taken decided to switch foreign aid from Yemen to other countries. The French before the vote was taken threated East European countries about membership into an economic union. What France did was pure bullying in an attempt to influence a vote. What the USA did was move its economic resources away from a country that had essentially aligned itself with the enemy after the vote.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I don't think you understood what I said. I tried to demonstrate the difference between what France did and what the USA did. The USA after the vote was taken decided to switch foreign aid from Yemen to other countries. The French before the vote was taken threated East European countries about membership into an economic union. What France did was pure bullying in an attempt to influence a vote. What the USA did was move its economic resources away from a country that had essentially aligned itself with the enemy after the vote.

The US threatened Yemen prior to the vote. They told Yemen before the vote that if it voted in a way which displeased the United States then the US would withdraw aid from that country. That's bullying, just as France threatening East European countries was bullying. I think both countries were wrong. That said, it's interesting that Chirac actually agreed to EU enlargement anyway...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

PS: I won't be here for a week or so, in case anyone misses me.

We'll miss you. Hurry back!

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"They told Yemen before the vote that if it voted in a way which displeased the United States then the US would withdraw aid from that country"

Can you show me the diplomatic transcript or document that proves this?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

STING,
I've read about this in numerous books and academic journal articles on international politics. Most of the journals aren't available online without a subscription.

However - you acknowledge that the US withdrew its aid from Yemen after the UN vote - do you really think it likely that the US wouldn't have indicated to Yemen prior to the vote that this would be a consequence of them not voting with the US?

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"However - you acknowledge that the US withdrew its aid from Yemen after the UN vote - do you really think it likely that the US wouldn't have indicated to Yemen prior to the vote that this would be a consequence of them not voting with the US?"

Certainly.

"I've read about this in numerous books and academic journal articles on international politics. Most of the journals aren't available online without a subscription."

I'm not interested in an authors opinion or what they infer based on X, Y, and Z. I'm looking for unmistakable proof for your claim. We have people here who claim that the US Diplomat to Iraq specifically told Hussien that it was ok to invade Kuwait. Looking at the transcript of the conversation, we know that is in fact false. Yet, many journals and magazines decided to print something different.