Baffling conundrum
Michael Vestey
More than a year after the war against Iraq was launched, the World Service and Radio Four have been broadcasting programmes about the extraordinary diplomacy engaged in by the United States and Britain to gain United Nations approval. On the World Service Edward Stourton has a four-part series called The Jigsaw in Pieces: the world after Iraq (Wednesdays). On Radio Four it's his twoparter, Fallow from Terror (Sundays).
Listening again to the frantic attempts by Britain and America to persuade members of the UN Security Council to agree to a resolution sanctioning war, one couldn't help wonder what the point of it was, especially as France, Germany and Russia withheld their support. The United States didn't really need another resolution. It was only Tony Blair's domestic opposition to the war that made him persuade President George W. Bush to seek the support of the UN. Nor did the US need Britain, as it made clear at the time. Partners in a coalition were useful to have, but not strictly essential.
One hears much talk about whether or not the war was legal. Even the Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, felt the need to seek written assurance from the government that committing troops to war was lawful; he was told it was, No one really knows, of course, as there isn't a set of international laws covering such matters unless you regard the UN as a form of world government able to make its own laws. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, talked of the embarrassment over the forged document showing that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger for its nuclear-weapons programme. He said, though, that Britain believed Iraq had sought the uranium even if it hadn't actually bought any. Who forged the document remains a mystery.
Britain's ambassador to Washington at the time was Sir Christopher Meyer. who was about to retire. He told Stourton that when he went to say goodbye to President Bush and others he was aware of the sense of disillusionment and betrayal they felt at the decision by France, Germany and Belgium not to support the war. Some told him they could no longer regard France and Germany as allies. Richard Hart, then an official at the State Department, still believes that neither the US nor France has recovered from the disagreement. Meyer indicated that he'd tried to get the US defence secretary, Donald Rum sfeld, to moderate his outspokenness about 'Old Europe', comments he said that were 'not helping', but he was told it wasn't easy to stop him saying that kind of thing because that was his style. Refreshing it was, too, I remember thinking at the time. It all came to nothing and the war began on 20 March, delayed unnecessarily.
The relationship between the British and the French remains one of those baffling conundrums as wide as the English Channel. We all have our theories about why this should be. I've always found the French perfectly friendly and polite, though the animosity towards Anglo-Saxon habits is usually to be seen in the political and bureaucratic elites. The French have long been envious of British power, unable to compete with the rise and success of our colonial empire before we withdrew from it. Britain and America saving France twice in the last century didn't help matters. Now, the war in Iraq has reopened the gulf between the two countries which, as it happens, is not of great concern to me. At the moment anti-Americanism dominates French thinking, as well as the absurd need to create some sort of EU superstate to rival the United States militarily and economically, two impossible aims when you consider the sluggish statism of 'Old Europe'.
Anyway, I was hoping for some elucidation of all this in The Archive Hour — Frogs and Rosbifs on Radio Four (Saturday), which was meant to explore the rivalry and suspicion between the two nations at a time when the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale is being marked. It was presented by the French broadcaster Antoine de Caunes, who is apparently known for his television programme Eurotrash. I found it extremely disappointing and was forced to abandon it after a while. The main problem was that I could barely understand his strong French accent and was straining to follow what he was saying. His English is obviously good, but is defeated by the accent which was sometimes beyond me. It was a great pity as this is a theme well worth exploring.
Previous page
