[lbo-talk] Re: France caves on control of Oil

Paul_A paul_a at igc.org
Thu Apr 24 05:03:14 PDT 2003


Although it was on the front page of the NYT, the actual import is terribly under-reported. De la Sabliere's press statement was on C-Span. At first, most reporters understood it exactly like Michael: a deft move that covers all the NON-OIL civilian sanctions (btw the French do want to keep the formality of arms embargo). The reporters asked him 5 or 6 times if that was not what he really meant to say. He finally chuckled and reiterated: the Oil for Food would be quickly ended and sanctions on ALL civilian items would be suspended. Only one point would remain: suspension and not final lifting, because the UN inspectors had not yet certified Iraq as WMD-free (so there would be an awkward Security Council moment for the US a few months down the road).

In an apparently coordinated move, the Chinese announced the same view yesterday. The Russians have not yet changed their position.

The U.S. reaction was very cool. Mostly miffed at only suspension; no acknowledgment of an olive branch. Some have pointed out that if rebuffed too much the French might yet 'reinterpret' their view - they did not put an exact timetable on the end of Oil for Food.

As most of the press noted this is a major and unexpected change of position.

Michael Pollack wrote:


>I think this subject line not at all right.

.....


>This does not, however, concede any key point. It does not concede any of
>the UN's total control over oil sales going forward.

.....


>The oil control question is a deft reverse. The point at issue is the
>UN's current legal control over all Iraqi oil sales. The US wants to
>abolish it so it can have it. To that end, the US has been fairly
>successfully in portraying France as being against lifting sanctions (a
>morally untenable position). This makes it clear that's not so, and opens
>the way for suggestions that the US is trying to steal the oil.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list