Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
French Extortion At The UN  
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1425 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.

Chirac and Villepin are a disgrace.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-lockerbie-france-usa.html

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1406 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!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1405 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.

Here is a another link

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/14/un.lockerbie/index.html

[Edited 2003-08-14 21:57:06]

[Edited 2003-08-14 21:58:22]

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1395 times:

Schoenorama,
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.


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1383 times:

Look, Donder10 is right when he says that France will only use the word 'veto' when they want to put pressure.

But what the hell, N79969, 'put France out of the security council', OK in your hatred against France, but since when do you care about the Security Council?

If America can do what it wants, with or without the permission of ANY organisation, why do you care suddenly so much about the Security Council?


User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1381 times:

Well, at least they're not bypassing the UNSC completely  Insane

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1378 times:

CPH-R,

"Well, at least they're not bypassing the UNSC completely "

That is exactly what France should be doing. They should settle their dispute directly with Libya.

If they want more money from the Libyans, then they should go ask for it directly.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1368 times:

N79969:

"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...

Donder10:

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!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1361 times:

"I believe the anonimity of the source is very relevant! "

Actually it is completely irrelevant. News outlets routine use anonymous sources that they judge as reliable all over the world.

Well lo and behold, now Reuters is reporting it. Saying that France made the threat "in private."

http://biz.yahoo.com/rm/030814/lockerbie_france_usa_1.html

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.

[Edited 2003-08-14 22:56:01]

[Edited 2003-08-14 23:00:38]

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1341 times:

if they didn´t do they would probably be called weasels in this thread ...

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1325 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.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1308 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
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1294 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.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

At least France is threatening blackmail, as it were. The U.S. didn't even do that over Iraq-we just threw out the UN and went in there.  Big grin

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1274 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.

Alpha 1,

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.

[Edited 2003-08-15 06:14:49]

User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

N79969 wrote:

"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?

[Edited 2003-08-15 11:56:32]

User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

N79969, you still didn't answer my question:

If America can do what it wants, with or without the permission of ANY organisation, why do you care suddenly so much about the Security Council?


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

PHX-LJU,

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.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

I wonder how much money the victims of the Iranian A300 got from the US when it was shot down. At lease Libya is offered compensation.

Before the US gets on it's high horse about this, maybe it should look at it's own past. Are you honestly saying the US has never used its veto?

[Edited 2003-08-15 15:01:18]

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

777236ER,

That was a remarkably poor and wholly irrelevant analogy.

But since you raised the issue or Iran Air, why not look it up and post it?


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1204 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.


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1198 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.




You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1193 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.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1180 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.


User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1168 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 Post contains links 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
6 Months Later - John Bolton At The UN posted Sat Mar 4 2006 10:50:24 by Cfalk
Jack Straw At The UN. Amazing. posted Fri Mar 7 2003 21:36:56 by KLAX
At Look At The Potential Next UN Secretary-General posted Sun Oct 3 2004 05:37:24 by Garnetpalmetto
Antics At The 2006 Holiday Office Party. posted Sat Dec 9 2006 20:31:43 by Mirrodie
How To Spot If A Terrorist Is At The Airport posted Mon Dec 4 2006 10:29:03 by Gkirk
Why The € Is Stronger At The Year End? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 10:33:51 by F.pier
Flirting With Hotties At The Airport posted Fri Dec 1 2006 19:53:44 by Runway23
Gettin' A Thumpin At The Rodeo posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:08:32 by Flyf15
Headaches At The Polls-voting Machines Screw Up posted Tue Nov 7 2006 21:53:52 by 727LOVER
Boring Day At The Music Store posted Sat Oct 28 2006 04:24:29 by AsstChiefMark