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

[Paul_A]

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.