N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
This is simply unbelievable. France is threatening to veto the a move to lift sanctions on Libya unless victims of the UTA disaster get more money. The trouble is that France already settled and tried to have sanctions lifted.
Having seen what the US and UK did, they are piggybacking on this agreement and holding the deal hostage. They had their chance and blew it.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
I think you should read the article more carefully. First it says:
"They have threatened to veto unless Libya pays more money (for the UTA victims), said the U.S. official, who asked not to be named."
Then it says:
"A French foreign ministry statement said France wanted more compensation for families of the 170 victims of the mid-air bombing UTA Flight 772 over Niger in 1989 before agreeing to U.N. sanctions being lifted in a deal over the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing.
The French foreign ministry did not say whether France would go as far as to veto a U.N. vote to end sanctions against Tripoli, as it has been urged to do by a group representing families of the UTA victims."
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
I read it carefully. The veto is on the table apparently otherwise there would have been no issue and no newstory. I'm not sure why the anonymity of the source has any relevance. Apparently Colin Powell is dicussing the matter with Villepin which vindicates the source whoever he or she may be.
Before the US and UK reached a deal, the French were arguing for the sanctions to be lifted. But changed their minds seeing the US-UK as an opportunity to get out of their own poorly negotiated settlement.
Another reason why France should be replaced on the Security Council.
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
this is the game of diplomacy where threats are made implicitly and all diplomats understand the language.It does appear that France is seriously considering such a veto 'reading between the lines'.Although a lot more subtle than their last threat.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
"I'm not sure why the anonymity of the source has any relevance.
I believe the anonimity of the source is very relevant! The fact that none of this information is official and hasn't even been acknowlegded by the French themselves, indicates clearly that the reason this 'info' has been released has nothing to do with just 'informing the general public'.
"Another reason why France should be replaced on the Security Council.
You're speaking complete b0llocks again. As a matter of fact, the French are doing exactly the same thing innumerous US Administrations have done over the past 30 years at the UNSC. Now that doesn't mean I agree in case the story is, or becomes, true in the next few days. But you want France removed from the UNSC just because they don't agree with the US/UK! So what's next then? Remove all Democrats from Congress because they never agree with the Republicans?
For your information, the US, not too long ago, openly stated (M. Albright) they would use their veto against lifting the sanctions even in the case Iraq complied with all UNSC resolutions. Now these sanctions were put in place to get Iraq to comply with the resolutions, so lifting them would be reasonable. I don't recall the French proposing the removal of the US from the UNSC...
I understand how diplomacy works. Yet I do get the impression this is yet another episode of France-bashing from certain people within this Administration.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
France is interfering in a settlement that has no effect on them whatsoever. (Other than that they are now embarrassed at their incredibly poor negotiating skills) They are using their seat to get more money out of Libya since they now realize that they did such a poor job negotiating with them
I think France should be replaced with a responsible country rather than one that seems to indulge in grandstanding. There is a long list of countries (many of them that oppose US policy) that fit the bill. Thomas Friedman recommended India in one his columns. The certainly are not 'yes' men to this country but they don't define themselves as the counterbalance to the 'hyperpower' either.
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
Perhaps another issue is the method of payment to the victims:2.5 million for the removal of UN sanctions,2.5million more for the removal of US sanctions and 1.25 million for the removal of Libya from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states.
This could clearly irk the French a tad.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
Funny how certain folks attack their own country but defend others. I will never understand some of these characters. They truly should be ashamed of themselves. Yet again, the post is drawn up pretty much on "party" lines.
France is more or less looking for a larger handout. It negotiated poorly with the Libians and is not suffering from embarrasment because the U.S. and U.K. did a better job. Yet again another desperate struggle by France to prove it has muscle on the world scene. Your opinion really didn't matter last time, what do you think has changed? As for removing the French from the Security Council, I second that motion. Could an alterior motive be that Libya is going to order Boeing's instead of Airbus's now that they have tried to patch up their relationship with the U.S.?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Why don't we wait and see what is the French government version about this before this thread becomes another battlefield, eh?
I've just looked up major French newspaper websites and, so far, they only posted articles from press agencies that pretty much reflect what N79969 posted in the first place. So we have no official French statement yet.
Again, let's wait and see, okay?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 1199 times:
I don't think France is looking for a handout per se. Had they waited and coordinated with the US and UK on how to get a better settlement for their people, I would not have a problem of any kind. The French government is obligated to look out for it citizens' interests.
But it didn't adequately do so in the first place and now is holding US and UK efforts to help their own citizens hostage to compensate for their gross ineptitude in negotiating with Libya in the first place. This sickens me and reminds me why I dislike the French government (all of them) with such fervor.
I sense that the French will eventually back down on this one. They would be stupid not to do so.
Get over your partisan complex. The US ignored the UN because of absolutely ridiculous behavior by France. A UNSC with France on board is frankly not worth listening to.
PHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1172 times:
"I think France should be replaced with a responsible country rather than one that seems to indulge in grandstanding. There is a long list of countries (many of them that oppose US policy) that fit the bill. Thomas Friedman recommended India in one his columns."
Even if we buy your notion that France should be replaced on the Security Council, do realize that Europe would probably not like the body to be left without a EU-member nation from the Continent, so India is pretty much out of the question as a replacement. And besides, how is India, with its constant cold war against Pakistan, a "more responsible" nation than France?
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1140 times:
I did not suggest that India be put on the UNSC. Thomas Friedman did. Rather I was pointing it out as an example of a country that could fit the bill. There are a number of candidates. Germany would also fit. Perhaps Brazil.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
While it's not directly relevant, it's an interesting point.
The US gets annoyed when France threatens to use it's veto on a "petty" issue over compensation for plane crash victims...yet when the US admits (and it did admit - eventually) to shooting down an A300 accidently, there's no compensation. Was there even an apology?
This is just another example of the outrageous double standards exhibited by the US.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 37 Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1123 times:
>>>The US gets annoyed when France threatens to use it's veto on a "petty" issue over compensation for plane crash victims...yet when the US admits (and it did admit - eventually) to shooting down an A300 accidently, there's no compensation. Was there even an apology?
This is just another example of the outrageous double standards exhibited by the US.<<<
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:11:34 -0800 (PST)
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The United States agreed with Iran
Thursday to pay up to $300,000 to families of each of the
Iranian passengers of an Iran Air airliner shot down by a U.S.
warship in 1988, the State Department announced.
The department said that in a settlement totaling $131.8
million, the two deeply hostile countries also resolved a series
of banking disputes stemming from the American hostage crisis in
Tehran, which ended in 1981.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
I was just about to post that same information. Iran's negotiators are far more shrewd than French negotiators. France settled for about $3,000 per victim with Libya. That is a travesty. The French officials who made that deal are criminally incompetent. Iran got 50 to 100-times the amount per person.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1105 times:
Well I was wrong! First for everything I suppose.
Annnnnyway, France-bashing for the sake of it is as pointless as America-bashing. Just because France use of its veto for stupid matters doesn't mean it should be kicked out of the security council - America often does the same.
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
Just read the editorial in "Le Monde" newspaper (which is, to France, the equivalent of the New-York Times).
The origin of the $3000 to $30000 settlement to the families of the UTA flight victims is that the UN at the time (including the US and the UK) was looking for a criminal procedure against Khadafi. Which is why France didn't push for a better deal.
It seems that the US and the UK have decided to trade the criminal procedures against money. In other words, the US/UK have allowed Khadafi to buy his way out of criminal responsibilities.
France is now simply saying:"Since you guys (US/UK) have changed your position on this issue without letting us know, then we'll change our position as well and we want our fair share of the deal".
Make sense to me.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
25 N79969: I read a machine-translated version of the article. The bottom line remains that France settled and now wants to retroactively change it simply becaus
26 BarfBag: And besides, how is India, with its constant cold war against Pakistan, a "more responsible" nation than France? Gee whiz. By your argument both the U
27 PHX-LJU: BarfBag wrote: "Gee whiz. By your argument both the US and USSR ought to have been chucked out of the UNSC in the 1950s." No, no; I'm not saying that
28 Qb001: N79969, You just don't get it. It's the US/UK who traded the original decision (looking to prosecute Khadafi) for money. It's not at all a case where
29 BarfBag: I was simply responding to the silly argument that France should be replaced by India because France isn't "responsible" enough. Perhaps 'irresponsibl
30 N79969: Qb001, Despite your Francophile-inspired prejudice, I comprehend this just as well as you do. France could have waited things out and participated wit
31 Qb001: N79969, I am francophile and it's not a prejudice, it's an advantage as it allows me, unlike you, to get French information first hand. And I persist:
32 N79969: Qb001, My retort: your like/love of France blinds you. Francophilia comes with a full set of sniffy prejudices from what I have observed. I assure you
33 Qb001: N79969, I don't know what to say. It's as if you don't read what I write. France did team up with the US/UK. It's them (US/UK) who broke the deal. Fra
34 Schoenorama: What is really a bit weird is that 3 countries, 2 of which are members of the UNSC, agree on a deal to lift UNSC sanctions when these 2 countries alon
35 N79969: Qb001, I am also at a loss on how better to explain what has occured. But I think that France betrayed its own people for reasons I do not know. Schoe
36 Schoenorama: N79969: "But I think that France betrayed its own people for reasons I do not know." I don't know where France betrayed their own people. First, when
37 N79969: Schoenorama, Are you suggesting regime change in Libya? I really think the French government shortchanged their people by agreeing to those very low a