Bush's advisor told Chirac's envoy: war or the departure of Saddam Hussein

POSTED ON[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] BY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=52]Bush's advisor told Chirac's envoy: war or the departure of Saddam Hussein[/size]

[size=45]A new book reveals the secrets of the French position after twenty years of the occupation of Iraq,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Nawaf Shadel Taqa[/size]
[size=45]Paris[/size]
[size=45]Chirac addressing Bush before the invasion of Iraq: This war will not be legitimate, and will cause the West to lose its moral principles in the East.[/size]
[size=45]President Chirac's advisor asks Condoleezza Rice: “According to what conditions can you back down from waging war?” She replies: “Saddam Hussein's departure.”[/size]
[size=45]Condoleezza Rice addressing President Chirac's advisor: “We don't need you… We spent our own money on the war, and we gave the blood of our soldiers as a price for that: We will move forward without you.”[/size]
[size=45]President Chirac: Democracy is not imposed by coercion, nor by armored vehicles.[/size]
[size=45]A book entitled “Others Don’t Think Like Us” was recently published in the French capital, Paris, by the Buchanan Publishing House, written by the veteran French ambassador, Maurice Gordo-Montagnier, who held high positions in his country, including the diplomatic advisor to the late President Jacques Chirac, in which he reviewed his experience in diplomatic work. The French through the high positions that he occupied during his previous work in sensitive positions in the Elysee Palace and in important foreign capitals, the last of which was Secretary-General of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs before his retirement.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The writer dedicates the fourth chapter of his book to talking about the war in Iraq, beginning his speech by addressing the second term of President Jacques Chirac between the years 2002-2007, which he said had witnessed completely different events from what preceded it. These events began with a complete chaos in international relations and a great disturbance in the balance of power “because of the second Iraq war launched by US President George W. Bush on March 20, 2003, which not only brought about profound changes in the nature of political calculations in the Middle East region, but also caused turmoil in The relationship between the United States and Europe,” the author said.[/size]
[size=45]At the beginning of this chapter, the author explains the unique nature of the French decision-making process in the field of foreign policy, which is almost unique to France. diplomacy.” This cell was headed by the author of the book, Maurice Gordo-Montagnier, during the invasion of Iraq, and it is the position that is equivalent to the position of National Security Adviser in the American administration, where he says that he used to attend daily at eight o’clock in the morning in the office of President Chirac to brief him on the latest international developments and receive instructions, in “ A planet where events go on non-stop despite the sleep many people enjoy.” The writer goes on to explain that President Chirac, like the presidents who preceded him, loves the international scene, and he knows a lot about world leaders, presidents, kings, princes, influential ministers, and prominent political figures.[/size]
[size=45]Through the pages of this chapter, the writer does not hide his admiration for the personality of the late President Jacques Chirac, as he describes him as a diligent president who is close to his aides and senior officials in his government, listens to them, and takes their opinions away from narrow electoral considerations and internal political interests, keeping his country's supreme interest in mind.[/size]
[size=45]Iraq invasion[/size]
[size=45]The writer saw that Chirac was aware of the repercussions and dimensions of the Iraqi dilemma thanks to his knowledge of the reality and history of the Arab-Islamic world. In addition, Gordo Montagnier writes: “Since the beginning of 2002, it has been clear that the Americans are heading towards war, after the speech of President George Bush and his talk about the (axis of evil) at the West Point Military Academy in early June of the same year had prepared and prepared American Public Opinion of the Scene of Armed Conflict”. Gradually, the writer added, American society and Congress were mobilized for a state of war, as “the United States decided to consider Saddam Hussein’s regime an enemy, under the pretext that he possessed weapons of mass destruction in contravention of international rules,” and moved forward by confirming these allegations without providing evidence. concrete accusations. Chirac immediately realized, according to the author, the risks involved in this policy and its impact on the unity of the Western world and on the regional balance. The late French president considered that destabilizing Iraq by supporting an American military attack would eventually cause a confrontation within the Islamic world. Accordingly, “Chirac believed that the fragile balance that was achieved in 1988, eight years after the bloody war between Iran and Iraq, between the Sunnis who were on the defensive, and the Shiites eager to consolidate their territorial gains, would not likely be able to withstand.” In addition, Chirac, who knew Saddam Hussein in the seventies when he headed the French government at the time, declared without hesitation that the Iraqi president "has become a thing of the past" and that he will not stay for long. Accordingly, “Chirac believed that the fragile balance that was achieved in 1988, eight years after the bloody war between Iran and Iraq, between the Sunnis who were on the defensive, and the Shiites eager to consolidate their territorial gains, would not likely be able to withstand.” In addition, Chirac, who knew Saddam Hussein in the seventies when he headed the French government at the time, declared without hesitation that the Iraqi president "has become a thing of the past" and that he will not stay for long. Accordingly, “Chirac believed that the fragile balance that was achieved in 1988, eight years after the bloody war between Iran and Iraq, between the Sunnis who were on the defensive, and the Shiites eager to consolidate their territorial gains, would not likely be able to withstand.” In addition, Chirac, who knew Saddam Hussein in the seventies when he headed the French government at the time, declared without hesitation that the Iraqi president "has become a thing of the past" and that he will not stay for long.[/size]
[size=45]Jacques Chirac believed that the destruction of the Iraqi regime through military action would necessarily cause an upset in the balance of power in the Arab-Islamic world, and would only lead to other tensions and conflicts. In this context, Chirac saw that the Middle East region was living in a state of relative stability, as Lebanon was witnessing a process of reconstruction sponsored by the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who had a close relationship with the French President, and Iran was under the strict supervision of the International Atomic Energy Commission, while Iraq was Subject to a strict economic sanctions regime, while Syria was “timidly” opening up to the world after Bashar al-Assad came to power, and France was trying to bring it back to the international community. Thus, Chirac saw that he might be able to create a more secure and stable Middle East region in which his country would be able to occupy a leading position. It also seemed clear to Jacques Chirac that the destruction of this fragile mosaic for the purpose of achieving imaginary gains constituted a major strategic mistake. Thus, his insightful vision of the situation in the region remained throughout the second half of 2022, and he also remained opposed to the American project for the region. Internally, there are secondary political circles that did not agree with Chirac in his opposition to the US military orientations, including some voices in the headquarters of the French Foreign Ministry that bear “Atlantic” orientations, in addition to some business circles that feared that France would be subjected to US economic sanctions because of its stance. hostile to the United States. The writer adds, “However, the stakes for the French president and his foreign minister were completely different, as they revolved around a fundamental issue related to a French sovereign decision related to war and peace.”[/size]
[size=45]According to this vision, French diplomacy began in the fall of 2022 to build the building blocks of the famous Security Council Resolution No. 1441, which stipulated the establishment of United Nations inspection missions to roam Iraqi sites in order to verify that they are free from any programs for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. This resolution stipulates that if Iraq obstructs the work of the inspectors, a new session of the Security Council will be held during which appropriate measures will be taken. Thus, France has ensured that the resolution will not turn into an automatic means of waging war. Despite this progress made thanks to the strenuous efforts of prominent French diplomats, the Americans remained obsessed with the idea of ​​eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime.[/size]
[size=45]After that, the French diplomat recounts his testimony related to the direct meeting, face to face, that took place between French President Jacques Chirac and US President George W. Bush on the sidelines of the NATO summit held in Prague in late 2002. The writer says that he had met before that summit in Washington He met with a number of US officials, which gave him the opportunity to get acquainted with US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was known by the nickname “Condi”, and whom he said represented “the embodiment of the American project in the Middle East.” The writer explained: I remember in a conversation I had with her one day, and while we were discussing whether Iraq should adopt a constitution before or after the elections, she surprised me with firm words in which she told me, “She was born in the Birmingham area, in the American county of Alabama, without What rights, and that thanks to the founding fathers of America and its constitution, it has become what it is today.”[/size]
[size=45]Returning to the Prague meeting, the writer recounts that with the approaching hour of the outbreak of war, the delegations sat face to face, as President Bush was keen to avoid looking at President Chirac's face, while the French President was aware that it was his last chance to try to change the convictions of his American counterpart. Chirac tried to use everything in his arsenal to convince his interlocutor, who did not show any flexibility. Chirac emphasized in his speech that “the war will destabilize the region and lead to the installation of pro-Iranian Shiites in Baghdad, strengthening Iran’s hand in Damascus, and strengthening it in Lebanon with the help of Hezbollah.” He added, “This war will not be legitimate, and it will divide the international community by causing the West to lose its moral principles in the East, and it will be a source of turmoil that will lead to a wave of terrorism that will be difficult to control.” However, Chirac's words collided with a wall of incomprehension and denial, and were unable to budge the American president from his position even an inch.[/size]
[size=45]Meanwhile, the United Nations asked the Iraqis to submit written pledges proving that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq capable of causing harm, while the meetings between him and Condoleezza Rice continued without leading to any significant result. Condé avoided answering his questions, and all she cared about was asking France a specific question, "Will you be with us or not?" Despite the agreement of the two parties to continue the meetings, the writer states that he felt that the Americans were rushing to war.[/size]
[size=45]After the end of the Christmas holidays, President Jacques Chirac decided to send his adviser, Maurice Gordon-Montagnier, to Washington to find out exactly the American intentions. According to this request, the writer says that he went to Washington on January 13, 2003 to hold direct meetings with his counterpart Condoleezza Rice at the White House, and with US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. The writer indicates that he found the US President's advisor, Rice, living in an atmosphere of war, and he had to address her with a direct question in the meeting that brought them together, devoid of any equivocation, as he asked her frankly: “What can stop you, and according to what conditions can you back down from waging war?” ?”. Condi looked at him for a few seconds and said, "Saddam Hussein gone." The French chancellor then asked another direct question related to the dangers of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.[/size]
[size=45]The writer then deals with the details of his meeting with US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, as it says on page 87 of the book: “I then went with Ambassador Jean-David Levitt (France's ambassador to the United Nations) to see Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, who left me waiting to meet him. I figured he might be busy, which I understand, though I'm not on a leisure visit. I did not find in Wolfowitz the burning intelligence or personal stature of Condoleezza Rice. His tone immediately betrayed the arrogance of the Bush administration. For my part, I reaffirmed our positions, but he did not listen to me, and in his words he showed great harshness towards France. It was undoubtedly one of the most unpleasant moments in my long diplomatic career. The Deputy Minister of Defense accused us of duplicity, telling me over and over again, "We know that you know," implying that we knew that the Iraqis were hiding nuclear weapons. Everything in his attitude, his looks, his gestures, his finger waving at me, confirmed his disrespect for France and its leaders, who in his eyes embodied defeatism and cowardice. However, his words at least had the advantage of clarity. Once back in Paris, I conveyed his gist to the president, who knew what to expect.”[/size]
[size=45]Irrespective of the diplomatic tension between France and the United States due to the position on Iraq, French diplomats felt that their American interlocutors not only wanted to go to war against the Iraqis, but also wanted to unleash their hands on the diplomatic and military levels. These diplomats came away with the conviction in their meetings in Washington that, unlike in the first Gulf War, it was clear that the Americans were not interested in building an alliance leading to a UN mandate, and that they were intent on carrying out operations as they pleased and according to their own plans. These conclusions coincided with the convictions generated by the French generals who visited Washington for the same purpose and found that the Americans were ready to go to war on their own.[/size]
[size=45]Diplomatic battle[/size]
[size=45]Against this background, the writer mentioned that President Jacques Chirac paid special attention to the issue of dialogue with his European partners and the rest of the members of the Security Council in an effort to build an anti-war position on solid foundations. However, what Chirac was most keen on during that battle was to stand up to the United States without falling into the “France alone” trap, that is, without France appearing as the only country opposing the American project, in what is known in diplomatic language as the isolated position. In addition, it was natural for France to turn to its main partner, Germany, where Gerhard Schroeder was the German chancellor at the time. The month of January 2003 was known at the time as the Franco-German Declaration, which recalled the commitment of the two countries to the principles of the aforementioned Security Council Resolution No. 1441, and emphasized that “war would be the worst option.” In their statement, the two sides stressed that the only thing that could justify resorting to the use of force in Iraq is obstructing the missions of the United Nations inspection teams inside Iraqi territory, based on a Security Council resolution. The writer added that Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown within a few months, and for this reason he asked the Americans many times to be patient and not to ignite the fuse of war. In their statement, the two sides stressed that the only thing that could justify resorting to the use of force in Iraq is obstructing the missions of the United Nations inspection teams inside Iraqi territory, based on a Security Council resolution. The writer added that Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown within a few months, and for this reason he asked the Americans many times to be patient and not to ignite the fuse of war. In their statement, the two sides stressed that the only thing that could justify resorting to the use of force in Iraq is obstructing the missions of the United Nations inspection teams inside Iraqi territory, based on a Security Council resolution. The writer added that Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown within a few months, and for this reason he asked the Americans many times to be patient and not to ignite the fuse of war.[/size]
[size=45]Chirac's efforts were not limited to gaining allies for his position. It happened that on February 10, 2003, Russian President Putin visited Paris, where Chirac took advantage of the visit to win over another ally who opposes the war on Iraq. The writer said that President Chirac deviated from the rules of protocol used in receiving foreign presidents when he personally went to the airport to receive President Putin after his advisor hurriedly gave him a copy of the Franco-German declaration, which Chirac put in his pocket on his way to the airport, where President Putin agreed to what came. After making a few minor additions to the text. The two presidents, Chirac and Putin, then sat for about thirty minutes face to face as Putin wanted to make sure that France would be prepared to bear the diplomatic consequences of such a situation. Putin directed a direct question to Chirac, saying: “Will you be able to go as far as using the right of veto in the Security Council if the Americans fabricate pretexts to obstruct the work of the Hans Blix Commission?” Chirac answered unequivocally that he had personally taken responsibility for the decision. It was only a few days until China joined the anti-war camp, and the French started talking about the 3 + 1 bloc, that is, France, Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council, with Germany as a non-permanent member of the Council.[/size]
[size=45]Expansion of the alliance[/size]
[size=45]At the request of President Chirac, Gordon-Montagnier said that he intensified his contacts with the National Security Adviser to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bahari Vajpayee, as he met him more than once during his visits to Paris and they spoke discreetly about India's position on developments in the region. The French believed that India had historical interests in the region, especially with Iran and Iraq, that were supposed to convince it to join the anti-war coalition, while India had always put forward a position confirming that it was always moving away from global political axes and blocs, especially those related to the policies of the United States. Although India has not declared itself in the anti-Iraq war camp, it ultimately made its decision to stay out of the conflict in the region.[/size]
[size=45]France continued its hard work day and night to isolate America, and moved to the Security Council to win more votes in support of its anti-war position, as it turned towards the representatives of Latin American countries who are non-permanent members of the Council (Mexico and Chile). Mexican President Vincent Fox was on an official visit to Paris during that period, while Chilean President Ricardo Lagos was negotiating with the United States to reach an economic deal with Washington. These two countries showed great courage in resisting the American project in the Middle East. Meanwhile, President Chirac and his diplomatic team were in constant contact with other members of the Security Council to clarify his country's position and mobilize the necessary support for the French efforts in preparation for the Security Council meeting, especially since information came to Paris that Washington was active towards mobilizing support among the members of the Security Council to support Its military action against Iraq, regardless of the conduct of the work of the United Nations inspectors.[/size]
[size=45]Thus, the atmosphere in the Security Council was heading towards more tension ahead of the upcoming meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation in Iraq, in which Paris decided that French Foreign Minister De Villepin should personally participate. The speech delivered by Minister De Villepin during the aforementioned meeting held on February 14, 2003, to which he personally contributed, was praised by the members of the Security Council and appreciated by the international community. The aforementioned speech was subjected to extensive study and discussion in Paris, where French experts reviewed every word in it, even every letter, and re-read it over and over again, including President Jacques Chirac.[/size]
[size=45]Atlantic whims[/size]
[size=45]At the headquarters of the European Union, the developments of the Iraqi crisis revealed complex repercussions. The European public's sympathy for the European anti-war position was amazing, but there were European governments that were afraid of the consequences of moving away from the security alliance with the United States. In this context, the commitment shown by British Prime Minister Tony Blair towards the US military intervention plans in Iraq, and his complete bias towards the American hawkish rhetoric, caused great disappointment in a number of European capitals, and even to this day it remained a mystery that Paris did not understand, he said. Writer. Most of what surprised the French was seeing their “British ally, who knows exactly how fragile the political scene in the region is,” making decisions that do not serve the highest European interests.[/size]
[size=45]The atmosphere of tension between France and Britain continued until it reached its climax at the Touquier Summit that was held between the two countries in February 2003, when the French noticed the efforts made by Britain to distort the French position, which Paris considered to be ill intentions on the part of Tony Blair's government to discredit Paris' position. anti-war, which the writer described as "ideological blindness". President Chirac's advisor saw in his book that Tony Blair may have believed that democracy and economic liberalism would spread in the world, not to mention his belief that Blair was influenced by the "Christian dimension" of the American war efforts, which made him closer to President George W. Bush.[/size]
[size=45]The supportive position of America in the European Union was not limited to Britain, as Rome, Madrid and Warsaw joined the American camp. Paris, for its part, was not surprised by the position of the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose country was traditionally known for its Atlantic aspirations. As for the Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, he based his pro-American position heart and soul on personal motives, according to the writer, without revealing its contents. With regard to Poland, whose president, Alexander Kvashtevsky, was in constant contact with President Chirac, the French president seemed not surprised by the situation, after Warsaw had emerged from decades of communist domination, while millions of his citizens immigrated to the United States to settle there, which seems to have It created in Kvashtevsky an irresistible desire to please the United States at any cost. At that time, the number of member states of the European Union had not yet reached 28, but the division between the countries of the Union seemed clear between a camp supporting a project aimed at achieving European political, diplomatic and military independence, and another camp that aspires to nothing more than the establishment of a European free trade zone. Under US security protection. With the escalation of the Iraqi crisis, the dispute between the two camps worsened remarkably, until it came to the point that the Americans and the British described the French, Germans, and other Europeans opposed to the war as “losers.”[/size]
[size=45]American fury[/size]
[size=45]The writer emphasized that President Chirac, who believed in the justice of his anti-war position, then found that the situation between the Western allies had reached a complex state that was difficult to control, which prompted him to ask his diplomatic adviser, Maurice Gordon-Montagnier, to go to Washington to meet the US National Security Adviser. Condoleezza Rice to find a way to overcome differences over the use of force, and to think about ways to rebuild Iraq and achieve stability in the country. But the response that the French Chancellor received from his counterpart, Condé, was dry, after he found her still living in the atmosphere of the euphoria of military victory. Without you.”[/size]
[size=45]Despite the foregoing, a phone call was arranged between Presidents Chirac and Bush in late April 2003, and that call was a prelude to a phase of calm in relations between the two countries that contributed to creating the calm that was necessary for the two parties, especially since France was going to chair the Group of Seven countries that Its summit was scheduled to be held in the Swiss city of Evian in mid-June of the same year. After that, what could be considered a stage of gradual thawing of ice in relations between France and the United States began, as Paris, whose president was aware that the division between the allies in the Security Council would poison the alliance and global stability, began to present initiatives to win the sympathy of the United States, the most prominent of which was the abandonment of France For its accumulated debts owed by Iraq, amounting to 80 billion euros, within the framework of the Paris Club. The aforementioned Paris decision caused internal criticism in France, but French officials believed that the Iraqis would not be able to pay the amount in all cases.[/size]
[size=45]Meanwhile, the course of events in Iraq began to take a more dangerous turn, and acts of violence against American forces in the country increased significantly during the years 2003 and 2004, and seemed out of control, and the coalition countries began to distance themselves step by step from the United States. The high levels of violence in Iraq and the deterioration of the regional situation in the region required more intensive coordination between France and the United States on many issues. “These events have proven that we were right, but at the same time we were careful not to announce it,” the writer asserts. However, the writer goes back to recognizing that despite the foregoing, the United States continued to move forward with the implementation of its project of building a “Great Middle East” at a time when it seemed to us unrealistic to impose democracy in the region through coercion or as President Chirac described it: (by means of armored vehicles). ), or through institutions funded by the United States.”[/size]
[size=45]Despite the foregoing, the United States did not stop showing its annoyance with France through “frivolous behavior” at times, as the writer describes meetings held in the White House in Washington at the level of political advisors, and how the seat assigned to him was placed at the end of the meeting table to On the side of his German colleague, behind the representatives of the other countries of the coalition. However, the situation changed from August 2004, when the chances of re-electing President George Bush for a second term appeared on the horizon, when President Chirac asked his diplomatic advisor to visit Washington, as part of a series of visits during which they exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East. After Condoleezza Rice assumed the position of US Secretary of State in 2005, Steve Hadley was appointed to succeed her as National Security Adviser in the White House, and he had a good relationship with his French counterpart.[/size]
[size=45]At the end of this chapter, President Chirac's advisor discusses the transformation in relations between the two countries after 2004, pointing out that the United States has become more attentive to President Chirac's analysis and to France's opinion on international developments without admitting it of course. Relations between the two countries have resumed witnessing close cooperation and coordination regarding a number of hot files in the Middle East region, especially with regard to the situation in Syria and Lebanon. With regard to the Iranian nuclear file, which was the subject of great interest on the part of the United States. The diplomatic advisor to the French president did not lose sight of the fact that the United States was in dire need of France's cooperation to pass the relevant resolutions in the Security Council. The consultant concluded:[/size]
[size=45]Finally, what the diplomatic advisor to the French president did not mention in the book is that the United States of America never forgave President Jacques Chirac for his opposition to its military project in Iraq. On September 26, 2019, it was announced in Paris that former French President Jacques Chirac had passed away, at the age of eighty-six. The French government organized a solemn memorial ceremony for him, in which about 30 leaders from all over the world participated. However, the United States returned to behaving in a childish manner, despite the fact that its dispute with France had passed more than 15 years ago, and the White House announced that the participation of the United States in the memorial service for the former French president will be limited to its ambassador in Paris, Jimmy McCourt, which is a level Modest as per diplomatic norms. It is also mentioned that former US President Bill Clinton was among the guests who participated in the memorial ceremony, but his participation was in a personal capacity.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]