France changes stance.. Disagrees with Iran Sanctions!

JaJae · 09-18-2006, 07:13 PM

Chirac shifts position over Iran sanctions before Bush meeting - World - Times Online

Chirac shifts position over Iran sanctions before Bush meeting
By Devika Bhat and agencies

Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the other Western powers over their strategy of containing Iran on the eve of a summit of world leaders in New York.

The French President said that world powers should abandon the idea of sanctions and in return Iran should agree to give up its programme of uranium enrichment while discussions between the two sides took place.

The US is leading proposals to impose sanctions on Iran if it refuses to halt its nuclear programme, which it is feared may be used to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran insists that its aims are peaceful and its research is for the purpose of generating power.

But now, ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York where he will come face to face with President Bush, M Chirac said that the six nations involved in the matter - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the US – should set an agenda for talks, with both sides removing the burden of threats.

"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations. Then, during these negotiations, I suggest that the six renounce referring (Iran to) the UN Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations," he said in an interview with Europe-1 radio.

"I don’t believe in a solution without dialogue.

"I am not pessimistic. I think that Iran is a great nation, an old culture, an old civilisation, and that we can find solutions through dialogue."

It was the first time a European leader has clearly stated that suspending uranium enrichment - a key step to building nuclear weapons - was not a pre-condition for opening negotiations, with M Chirac indicating that the suspension should come during rather than before talks.

M Chirac said that should sanctions be unavoidable, they should be moderate.

He added that he had no plans to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while in New York, saying he "deplores" the anti-Israeli remarks made by the Iranian leader who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"I have very clearly stated that ... the conditions for a personal dialogue have not been fulfilled," M Chirac said.

Commenting on his country’s ties with the US, he said that he had very good relations with Mr Bush, but added: "In our relations we can only be equals. It cannot be a relationship of submission."

Charles Bremner, Times correspondent in Paris, said that M Chirac’s comments showed that the President was keen to assert his country’s standing in Middle Eastern affairs after his display of French diplomacy over the crisis in Lebanon.

"This is Chirac asserting himself on the eve of his meeting with Bush; he is reasserting France’s presence on the world stage and in the UN," he said.

"Lebanon diplomacy in August was an opportunity for France to re-establish its presence as a player in the Middle East.

"The French feel they need to be seen to be calming the Americans. Chirac is calculating that Iran is ready to talk and could be persuaded to make concessions."

He added that M Chirac’s comments were unlikely to antagonise dramatically the relationship with the White House even further since the two countries fell out over the war in Iraq in 2003.

"Since then they have got back to normal business but the damage from 2003 has still not been repaired."

It is not just France that the US faces resistance from on the issue of imposing sanctions. Last week, Germany said it was hopeful about further talks and China warned that sanctions might inflame the volatile situation, although it acknowledged it did not want to see Iran get nuclear weapons.

Russia raised the possibility of sanctions but only after holding additional talks with the Iranians.

Meanwhile, Reza Aghazadeh, the Iranian Vice-President, said that his country was ready "for negotiations and political compromise."

However, he gave a warning at the same time saying that any "hostile action by the Security Council would lead to a limitation of cooperation" with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, called for talks between Iran and the six powers to take place as soon as possible, and said that he was "hopeful" about negotiations.

He noted, however, Iran’s failure to meet an August 31 deadline imposed by the Security Council to suspend uranium enrichment activities. That suspension had been a precondition to talks with the six powers.

Just when you think you can trust the French.. here we go again. Once again France proves that everything they touch in the Middle East and everytime they get involved, they do the worst possible thing to fuck everything up.

Sanctions on Iran need to be put in place if they don'ts top enriching uranium. France has publicly been a long time supporter of this idea, but when it comes time to do something about it they back out? Why?! Are we going to find more illegal laundering ties between France and rogue dictatorships in the middle east again?

In all seriousness, this is getting nuts. Why is France so far out in left field that they can't play ball with the rest of the team. The world is coming down on Iran, and yet France is once again the outlet for these regimes. This needs to stop. Why the hell were they given a perm. seat on the damn UN Council?

motivez · 09-18-2006, 07:35 PM

It's their national perogative to change their mind on issues, and while I think they should have stayed with the current bloc of countries, I don't think this will stop us from continuing on the path to solving this problem..

I also don't know what "illegal" ties you think they could have?

Although we impose our own sanctions in Iran, no other country is bound by them.. and while Iran is not a western-style, or "true" Democracy.. they're certainly not a "dictatorship"

If I had to guess, I'd say that they continue to do things like this because of the way we acted with regards to Iraq, and now that they've been proven right, well, why should they stick with us after we decided to basically ignore them and the rest of the UN?

I think they (like Russia, and China) realize that sanctions aren't going to be anything earth shattering against Iran.. we can threaten them with them, but the reality is that neither China nor Russia will allow anything significant to happen anyway. They have too many business interests in that country..

ballz2wallz · 09-18-2006, 08:21 PM

That's because they were threatened with car fires.

Scrum · 09-18-2006, 08:27 PM

I'm not sure I understand your gripe. Is it over this quote that is underlined?

The French President said that world powers should abandon the idea of sanctions and in return Iran should agree to give up its programme of uranium enrichment while discussions between the two sides took place.

He is saying that they should give up their program and we give up the sanctions.
Isn't that what sanctions are for, to apply pressure on Iran to comply? I'm not sure why you think this is bad.

Should we still punish Iran even if they comply?

nbiggershaft · 09-18-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm not sure I understand your gripe. Is it over this quote that is underlined?He is saying that they should give up their program and we give up the sanctions.
Isn't that what sanctions are for, to apply pressure on Iran to comply? I'm not sure why you think this is bad.
Should we still punish Iran even if they comply?

Iran hasn't offered to comply. If they had there wouldn't be sanctions. The french are just trying to improve their trade. They have the scruples of drug dealers outside an elementary school.

ballz2wallz · 09-18-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

They have the scruples of drug dealers outside an elementary school.

JaJae · 09-18-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm not sure I understand your gripe. Is it over this quote that is underlined?He is saying that they should give up their program and we give up the sanctions.
Isn't that what sanctions are for, to apply pressure on Iran to comply? I'm not sure why you think this is bad.
Should we still punish Iran even if they comply?

Because what he's essentially saying is we should "abondon the idea of sanctions" and let Iran just stop enriching uranium on their own. You know out of the kindness of their hearts and to make everyone happy. As a good faith gesture to the UN doing absofuckinglutely nothing about them.

That's the part I have a problem with.

Scrum · 09-18-2006, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Iran hasn't offered to comply. If they had there wouldn't be sanctions. The french are just trying to improve their trade. They have the scruples of drug dealers outside an elementary school.

Ok.......I don't see what that has to do with his statement.

The French President said that world powers should abandon the idea of sanctions and in return Iran should agree to give up its programme

He isn't saying give up sanctions and maybe they will give up the program.
He's saying we should give up the sanctions and they should give up the program. It's pretty cut and dry.

Scrum · 09-18-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because what he's essentially saying is we should "abondon the idea of sanctions" and let Iran just stop enriching uranium on their own.

You are reading what you want to hear out of this. That's not what he said on the underlined part.

Scrum · 09-18-2006, 08:38 PM

And why does it matter if the UN puts sanctions on them?
The UN says lots of things to the US and Isreal and we tell them to go suck eggs.

Hell, most of you guys think the UN is useless and should be disbanded.

beez · 09-18-2006, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You are reading what you want to hear out of this. That's not what he said on the underlined part.

Selective reading on that one for sure. It's a quid-pro-quo arrangement he's suggesting.

Thorgrim · 09-18-2006, 08:40 PM

There have been hundreds of statements by France, UK, and Germany...i don't count one as being the defining moment, lets see where the cards fall

ballz2wallz · 09-18-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There have been hundreds of statements by France, UK, and Germany...i don't count one as being the defining moment, lets see where the cards fall

Too bad you don't use that school of thought for our own government.

Thorgrim · 09-18-2006, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Too bad you don't use that school of thought for our own government.

France hasn't cast a vote either way, the US invaded another country

bit of a difference, sir

nbiggershaft · 09-18-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Ok.......I don't see what that has to do with his statement.
He isn't saying give up sanctions and maybe they will give up the program.
He's saying we should give up the sanctions and they should give up the program. It's pretty cut and dry.

You are not intrepretting the situation correctly. The U.N. been saying, stop enriching or we will impose sanctions. They have said, fuck off. Now that we are getting to the time when we said the sanctions will be imposed, France is saying lets not impose sanctions, and we'll just talk to Iran some more and they 'should' give up the program. It's bs, they are just copping out because they want to be able to buy and sell to Iran while everyone else does the hard work. If it was a deal he was suggesting it wouldn't be news, a deal is the status quo.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-18-2006, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You are not intrepretting the situation correctly. The U.N. been saying, stop enriching or we will impose sanctions. They have said, fuck off. Now that we are getting to the time when we said the sanctions will be imposed, France is saying lets not impose sanctions, and we'll just talk to Iran some more and they 'should' give up the program. It's bs, they are just copping out because they want to be able to buy and sell to Iran while everyone else does the hard work. If it was a deal he was suggesting it wouldn't be news, a deal is the status quo.

Thats right, but lets be honest here, does anyone find this truly surprising? The UN has a history of repeating its same limp wristed mistakes. Hell they are looking much like the "league of nations". The world faces a pretty serious thread from Muslim extremists and the world wants to live in denial. The situations isn't exactly like Nazi Germany but some of the similarities in the way hte international community is handling the situation is downright startling.

Scrum · 09-19-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You are not intrepretting the situation correctly. The U.N. been saying, stop enriching or we will impose sanctions. They have said, fuck off. Now that we are getting to the time when we said the sanctions will be imposed, France is saying lets not impose sanctions, and we'll just talk to Iran some more and they 'should' give up the program. It's bs, they are just copping out because they want to be able to buy and sell to Iran while everyone else does the hard work. If it was a deal he was suggesting it wouldn't be news, a deal is the status quo.

Are you reading the same quote I am?
I don't see him saying "We won't sanction and someday you can give up your program".

nbiggershaft · 09-19-2006, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Are you reading the same quote I am?
I don't see him saying "We won't sanction and someday you can give up your program".

He's backing off the sanctions clearly. Sanctions that will olny be imposed if the current uranium enriching continues. Thats the whole idea. If he meant no sanctions if the Iranians cooperated we wouldn't be discussing this, there wouldn't be a news story at all.

Scrum · 09-19-2006, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

He's backing off the sanctions clearly. Sanctions that will olny be imposed if the current uranium enriching continues. Thats the whole idea. If he meant no sanctions if the Iranians cooperated we wouldn't be discussing this, there wouldn't be a news story at all.

world powers should abandon the idea of sanctions and in return Iran should agree to give up its programme

I agree. I'm not sure why we are discussing this.