September 18, 2007
Bellicose Bernard Kouchner
The appointment of Bernard Kouchner as French foreign minister was both brilliant and bizarre. It was brilliant because in bringing Kouchner on board, President Sarkozy managed to co-opt one of the stars of the Socialist Party and one of the most popular men in France. Kouchner is revered because he founded Medecins Sans Frontieres. And also – perhaps – because he is articulate, good-looking and married to a TV star.
But choosing Kouchner was also a bit bizarre because he was one of the few high-profile French public figures to have supported the invasion of Iraq - albeit slightly equivocally and on humanitarian grounds. Given that France led the opposition to the Iraq war and - as Sarkozy himself has pointed out - was vindicated by subsequent events, appointing somebody who made the wrong call seemed odd.
But the experience of Iraq does not seem to have chastened Kouchner. This week he has made the headlines, by saying of Iran - "We have to prepare for the worst and the worst is war." This goes beyond even what George W. Bush has said. His preferred formula is that – “All options are on the table”.
I have met Kouchner only once, when I was chairing a debate in Paris a couple of years ago. The fact that he was on the bill meant that we had a packed hall. Kouchner made a star’s entry – arriving late and striding dramatically through the hall to the podium. When he began to speak he started off in English – apparently absent-mindedly – before switching to French. The professor from the Sorbonne, sitting next to me, was unimpressed. “He’s showing off,” he hissed, “trying to show that he is so international that he cannot even remember that he is French.” But there was no denying Kouchner’s easy charm, or his rapport with the audience.
When it comes to Iran, it is also clear that Kouchner is no loose cannon (to use an appropriately martial metaphor.) Sarkozy himself has raised the possibility of war. In a speech to French ambassadors late last month, he talked of the need for more intensive diplomacy and tougher sanctions, to avoid an agonising choice between “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” This is a much tougher line than that taken by President Chirac, who seemed prepared to acquiesce to an Iranian bomb.
Unsurprisingly, the Americans are delighted by the change of mood in Paris. In Washington last week, a senior administration official (to use the required formula) sang Sarkozy’s praises to me. He was a breath of fresh air, “free of anti-American paranoia.” The official said carefully that he had no doubt that Sarko would stick up for French interests. But he was sure that he would refrain from “opposition for opposition’s sake.”
I would go a bit further than that. The rhetoric from Paris clearly makes an attack on Iran more likely. Until Kouchner and Sarkozy weighed into the debate, it was possible to argue (not entirely inaccurately) that the only real “war party” in western governments, was confined to a coterie of unrepentant neo-cons, grouped around Vice-President Cheney. But now that even France is talking of war, the international calculations will surely shift.
Quote of the Day 2: No Loose Cannon
The rhetoric from Paris clearly makes an attack on Iran more likely. Until Kouchner and Sarkozy weighed into the debate, it was possible to argue (not entirely inaccurately) that the only real “war party” in western governments, was confined to a c…
Posted by: Comments From Left Field | September 19th, 2007 at 12:39 am | Report this commentKouchner, like Sarkozy, Glucksman, Attali, Strauss-Khan…are the equivalent of American “neocons” who, like the last ones, have one thing in common: ISRAEL.
Their main purpose is just to defend the state of Israel, not France or the USA which are just “means” for the higher End of defending their nation.
Posted by: enrique | September 19th, 2007 at 11:19 am | Report this commentWith reference to the last paragraph, as an Iranian, I do worry about any aggression against Iran but I don’t think the French change of tack matters much.
In any case Bernard Kouchner has moderated his tone and has said war with Tehran was the ‘worst thing that could happen’.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5326e720-6617-11dc-9fbb-0000779fd2ac.html
As was seen before the invasion of Iraq, most nations of the world were against the action but it did not make any difference to what Washington had decided to do. They just found a few “leaders” who were willing (e.g. Blair and Howard) and bribed a few broken down Eastern European and other countries to join in and called it the “coalition of the willing”.
Many countries sent a token force as a means of keeping on the American monster’s good side.
This time, Gordon Brown might, or might not, stand aloof or participate less enthusiastically and Sarkozy might take Blair’s place. It does not make any meaningful difference to the decisions taken in Washington with a search for fig leaves only as an afterthought.
Needless to say it will make little difference to the overall military capability which will be provided by the US. (Is anybody scared of the French military, anyway? When was the last time they won?!)
I also take this opportunity to talk about my understanding of some of the thought processes on the Iranian side:
- On the nuclear issue they feel they have gone as far as they could go under the international law. Further concessions, it is felt, means giving away the nation’s rights and is tantamount to accepting that Iran has fewer rights than other nations.
Again, as was done before the invasion of Iraq, the victim is being asked to prove the negative (that they are not pursuing weaponisation) which is logically impossible and simply a precursor to backing Iran into a corner.
- They think the nuclear issue is simply an excuse. Even if they give in on this the US will find other things about which to bang the war drums against Iran (e.g. alleged support for terrorism).
- Iranians don’t think America will go ahead and attack because they think America has her hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, they feel they have significant retaliatory capability.
- On Sarkozy and Kouchner, it is pointed out that both are half-Jewish and that Sarkozy has a track record of racist comments and actions against Muslims before he became president. Therefore, it is suspected that they are anti-Muslim and pro-Zionist.
Personally, I doubt if Kouchner’s motivation is like that.
As I said, the above is my own reading of Iranian newspapers and web sites and I hold no official brief.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am | Report this commentMuch has been said of Kouchner’s status as an embedded Neocon, and I would further note that The Bush Administration/Neocons, indeed, won the battle for France. They will hold it in their foreign policy sphere so long as Sarkozy can distract the French public with his Napoleonic theatrics and disregard for what the French have long considered “la balance” in their celebrated and cherished quality of life. When one realises how many friends Sarkozy has had in the Socialist party, and the others there who seem to work for him, i.e., the Royal couple, it is clear their defeat was not simply a failure of message.
Beyond France, more needs to be said as to whether the Neocons are globalists in the image of the Oxtonians who once dominated foreign policy, or whether they are, as accused, Israeli/Zionist hoarders who hold to closely a Malthusian world view and embody “shareholder values” in the global marketplace. The world they are creating for us lesser mortals is less and less a world one will wnat to live in.
Iran holds one of the most promising (re-)emerging populations (71 millon) in the world today. (I would note that it is unwise, in this context, to overlook its Asian equivalent on the other side of the Subcontinent, Burma.) Nuclear or not, Iran’s success is arguably more of a threat to the Arabian peninula than it is to Israël. One can also not see how Iran could not quickly overshadow Iraq when its educated energies are unleashed.
Thus, Saudi Arabia’s complicity in US/Israeli/Neocon policies should be clear. The threat is far more economic and social than it is religious. My reading of life on the ground there is that Shia fundamentalism is rapidly on the wane, except in some very loud pockets. Rafanjani’s new role reflects this change. Muslims I know speak of the faith’s capacity to be a “thinking man’s” religion. There is a new buzz to this effect in Iran’s great universities and amongst her taxi drivers.
As Pacifist points out, Iran fears rightly that it is being deprived legitimate rights as a nation. It seems clear to anyone who has been there that their priorities are focused on the development of a viable energy infrastructure and less so for a place in the arms race, although this remains, sadly, on agendas.
The problem today is that her naighbours see Iran’s awaking as a dynamic, unified country as a profound threat to their class-based status quos. Persia once shown brightly and arrogantly. Outside Iran, those who today observe Ramadan feel they have more to fear from a new Persia than those who observe Yom Kippur.
The mediocrity of Washington CVs, reinforced sadly by the diminished academic rigour seen in US universities for more than a decade, raises the risks for us all. Condoleeza Rice is not qualified for her job; political correctness forces too many to overstate her qualifications and “achivements”. She is a special events girl. All corporations have them. Karl Rove, who interpreted Neocon objectives for the tone-deaf President, has been exposed in the recent Atlantic article as basically self-educated. A man who has not been subjected to comprehensives should not be in such a position. He circumvented US Civil Service and Foreign Service employment guidelines as a “consultant” just as Washington is sending young people into a war zone without the Basic Training and institutional coverage that a uniform represents.
Alan Greenspan, a dubious disciple and one-time lover of Ayn Rand, is doing a mea culpa this week. In his FT interview, he notes in reference to his belief that bubbles are “inevitable” that, “They (human beings) cannot learn.” Alan and the Neocons share precisely in this arrogance, which certainly undermines what little is left of Jeffersonian thinking in America.
As a respected rabbi in New York recently said in a lecture in a Reformed synagogue in New York, “We (Jews) are obliged to lead.” Gordon Brown and Tony Blair periodically echo similar phrases from the days of Empire.
Please keep lifting the curtain on such vanities and remind Jews and Americans that we need leaders not opportunists with secondary-level readings of history and economics.
Posted by: WCM Europe | September 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentDear WCM Europe,
It seems from the tone of your rambling tract that you are no less arrogant than what you accuse Greenspan or the Neocons of being. And despite your efforts at noncomformist intellectualising, Iran is still a greater danger to Israel - suffice it to recall the Holocaust denying and apocalyptic doom and destruction prophecies of Iran’s uncanny president.
Iran is ruled by an intolerant theocracy, and as such should indeed have less rights than other countries and should generally be constrained. The international system can ill afford to accomodate an agent which refuses to abide by the rules of the game: which refuses to recognise the right-to-exist of a fellow member of the United Nations, which has pulled out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and which has “allegedly” - as Pacifist would have it - sponsored worldwide terrorism.
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm | Report this commentIsraël is playing under the “rules of the game”? Chirac has already stated that Saudi Arabai and Egypt, supported by the US, are developing nuclear capabilities off the books. He was promptly rebuked by Washington.
Iran is subject to a unique set of rules and not those applied to all countries. When has one heard a US official speak of the potential contribution from an Iran that is encouraged to rejoin the global markets? What “carrots” is your (presuming your either American or Israeli) government extending to bring this debate to a more rational level?
My response rambles, and I make no intellectual pretenses. Arrogance goes with the playing field and you can hold your own.
Posted by: WCM Europe | September 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentDear Paco,
Iran has not pulled out of the NNPT.
In fact, for a couple of years, Iran VOLUNTARILY, even agreed to an additional protocol in exchange for certain promises of technical aid and trade from the EU3.
Those promises turned out to be fraudulent and not made in good faith so Iran withdrew from those additional protocols which, I emphasise again, were not complusory for any of NNPT signatories.
May I remind you that Israel, Pakistan and India never signed and the US is flagrantly in breach of the treaty.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm | Report this commentDear WMC,
The EU3 offered Iran some “carrots”.
The idea of offering carrots to a donkey (anyway, insulting to the noble and ancient nation of Iran!!) is that you dangle the carrot in front of the donkey and make it walk (and carry your load on its back) in the hope of getting the carrot. However, the donkey NEVER gets the carrot. It just keeps running in the hope of getting the carrot.
The technical aid and trade offered to Iran by France, Germany and the UK was not made in good faith. It was intended to delay the Iranian efforts and we all know that something delayed for long enough is realy something that is denied.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 19th, 2007 at 6:55 pm | Report this commentYour second paragraph shows how plastic the carrots were. So long as the US positions itself as the final arbiter, no progress can be made. Elections certainly changed things in France, but I see little chance of a Democratic administration being any more independent of AIPAC than the Bush or Clinton ones were.
Iran’s government borders on being beyond reproach. Nonetheless, the time for change seems to have genuinely arrived. Leadership is required to tap into it.
As for “canny” presidents, as Paco Rabane notes of Ahmadinezad, we have not seen a leader in Israël since Rabin.
My earlier piece needed an edit. Apologies to all for not doing so.
Posted by: WCM Europe | September 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm | Report this commentWhat “carrots” could Israel possibly extend to appease the Iranians? Self-annihilation? As for moving towards a more rational debate- Ahmadi-Nejad, at least, is not a rational actor (just ask his economists). Other members of the Iranian regime are motivated by a deep Persian jingoism.
Iran is not subject to a unique set of rules; Iran has broken the set of rules common to all countries.
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 19th, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Report this commentApologies again, this time for a bad edit: “beyond reproach” in my last post should be “reproachful”.
Ahmadinezad came to power with reasonably respectable academic credentials and a record as a focused regional leader in the Kurdish provinces during the years Saddam’s US-funded thugs were battering and poisoning Iran. Like others in power in the US and Israël, any integrity hsa been mortgaged for poltical power and old hates. Nonetheless, Paco’s use of the word canny was a good one. Ahmadinezad is an intelligence man and likely has an unlisted portable number for Vladimir.
No further comment from me.
Posted by: WCM Europe | September 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pm | Report this commentBellicose Bernard Kouchner is absolutely correct. We have to prepare for war because what we are dealing with is Iran whom have for years been building a covert program in the heart of the Iranian mountains. Their purpose is the acquisition of a Nuclear portfolio. Looking at satellite images on Google their silo’s in the Mountains are well developed so the Iranians have been developing and proliferating for years possibly with the help of the AQ Khan group in Pakistan and the North Koreans as well as the Syrians most recently.
Posted by: The Director | September 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am | Report this commentIf we are to prevent a Nuclear War in the Middle East then unilateral action has to be taken now.
The IAEA have been looking in the wrong places in Iran. They haven’t been to the underground facilities thus the IAEA regrettable to say have become ineffective.
To “The Director”: If you think have more intelligence than the IAEA possess why don’t you write to Mr. El Baradei and inform them of the location of the Iranian bomb factory?
I think they are stressed and could do with a good laugh
To Paco: We both know that Ahmadinejad is a jerk, a propaganda disaster for Iran and an absolute godsend for the Zionist lobby.
I think you may have seen this tongue-in-cheek article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz before:
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3371227,00.html
It is entitled “Ahmadinejad, our secret agent in Iran
Iranian president’s actions undermine his own country, help Israel”
I think it hits the nail on the head. Don’t you think?
There is also this story from an Iranian web site:
http://en.baztab.com/content/?cid=4719
Quote
Israeli lobbyists have exerted pressures on the US government and have encouraged the Americans to disregard their earlier decision [to refuse a visa to Ahmadinejad] and issue a visa for President Ahmadinejad once again, an informed source in the US State Department close to English BAZTAB said.
The concept of the Israeli lobbyists, the source believed, might have been that Ahmadinejad’s pointed and possibly unconventional language in his forthcoming statements in New York would well help create a war-mongering, precarious and intolerable image of the Islamic Republic, would provide the ground for exerting further economic pressures on Iran and encourage US military strikes against the country.
Unquote
Israel does not owe Iran any “carrots”. However, in the same way that Jews worried about the fate of their co-religionists in the former Soviet Union, many Iranians sympathise with the Palestinian cause.
Forget Ahmadinejad and Iran. Make a just peace with the Palestinians and all will be well with the Muslims, including Iranians. Of course, there are head-bangers on all sides but they are insignificant.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Report this commentOops… I meant Yedioth Ahronoth not Ha’aretz
Posted by: Pacifist | September 20th, 2007 at 10:38 am | Report this commentGoing back to the original article, I thought it may be interesting to post an article from Tehran Times on “Napoleon Kouchner”!
http://en.baztab.com/content/?cid=4808
Admittedly, as Napoleon Complex is “a type of inferiority complex suffered by people who are short” , it fits M Sarkozy better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentHe is a brilliant man and he may be attractive,can’t tell by photos and I must admit I prefer Putin with a shirt or without a shirt BUT he does NOT have the temperment for this position or the political sense…he is doing blackflips on this…just like he did after his utterances/visit to Iraq and his Lebanon negotiations came to NOTHING, I am sad to say as I had great hope there…here is the latest from Stratfor…
Posted by: Lisa | September 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm | Report this comment“French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner is ready to visit Iran and continue with dialogue to solve the issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, Kouchner said late Sept. 19 in an interview with Le Figaro newspaper published Sept. 20. He added that Paris is willing to mediate between the West and Iran and stressed the importance of negotiations not lasting years. He also said his recent remarks about a possible war with Iran were misinterpreted, and that the French government has always maintained dialogue with Iran.”
Article 2, par. 4 of the United Nations Charter forbids states “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The French foreign minister has clearly violated this provision of the Charter and should bear the responsibility for his action.
Posted by: Jan Sammer | September 21st, 2007 at 2:37 am | Report this commentI will not go into the details of Mr Rachman’s article. I will only deal with his assertion that
the bellicose French positions will affect international positions regarding iran and make an attack on it more likely.
I disagree totally. To start with, Kouchner has no credibulity whatsoever. As professor Hammond has pointed out on www.spiked-online.com this individual is an agent provocateur of the worst kind, an advocate of” Humanitarian military interventions” the net result of which has been mayhem. He is a french Neocon of the worst kind and on professional grounds no match for Lavrov who ouright told him that no war violence can solve the iran problem.
Those who want war will not get the UN SC to underwrite either a war or increased sanctions. That leaves Europe. With Germany, Italy, Spain and others against sanctions he will probably try the commission where some general declaration can probably be crafted expressing frustration etc.
The hard opponents to sanctions are Russia, China and the IAEA.
In addition there is a huge number of americans in positions of power who will make sure that these ideas get shot down.
So we are left with Tsipi Livni, the neocons on both sides of the atlantic and maybe G Brown on the side of Sarko and Kouchner.
A few months ago Business Week came up with 250$/b as the probable price of crude in case a war breaks out in the gulf.
Given the current, and probably protracted fragility, of the financial markets one would have to be insane beyond redemption to start a war against iran after the debacle of iraq and lebanon.
I do not believe that Wall Street will let Bush go thru with this one.
Posted by: Max Papadopoulos | September 21st, 2007 at 5:17 am | Report this commentMr Papadopoulos
Sound, well-stated reasoning. I would’ve hoped to be agreeing you now. I remain cautious as many of us argued similar points in 2003. The US has turned that war into a financial game that has pumped its bubbled markets beyond the ozone layer. It created a new global industry, security, and revived a failing one, aerospace/defence. They just can’t find the moneys to fix their bridges or educate their children.
George Bernhard Shaw opined early in the last century on man’s seemingly insatiable desires for foreign wars and adventures. Are we not reliving the 1930s today?
Posted by: WCM | September 21st, 2007 at 7:51 pm | Report this comment