Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=02/06/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=GUILLAUME PARMENTIER, DIRECTOR OF THE FRENCH CENTER ON THE UNITED STATES, FRENCH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

NUMBER=3-525

BYLINE=REBECCA WARD

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

/// Editors: This interview is available in Dalet under SOD/English News Now Interviews in the folder for today or yesterday ///

HOST: France and Germany have repeated their support for continued U-N weapons inspections in Iraq, following U-S Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Iraq needs to answer international concerns that it possesses weapons of mass destruction -- and called for significantly increasing the number of arms inspectors. Germany expressed its support for the French proposal to continue inspections, and called on Iraq to cooperate.

Guillaume Parmentier (gee-YOHM par-MAHN-tchee-a) is the director of the French Center on the United States at the French Institute of International Relations (known as IFRI) in Paris. Despite France and Germany's similar comments about Iraq -- he tells V-O-A's Rebecca Ward that their positions are not the same.

MR. PARMENTIER: The French have never excluded sending troops, which of course the Germans have, on both counts. The Germans have said that they would never vote for a resolution authorizing recourse to force. We've never said that. We've been very supportive of Resolution 14-41, which, as you know, owes a lot to French diplomacy. So, the French position hasn't changed. The French position is that we will use force if we can reasonably think that there is no other way to disarm Iraq. And the French position is that it's a little early to say so.

Unquestionably, Saddam Hussein is not entirely sincere -- let's put it that way. I mean, he's cheating. But what did you expect? No one in his right mind would have expected Saddam Hussein to be totally straightforward. So, he is hiding stuff, but how important is it that he's hiding stuff?

He has tried to make the life of the inspectors more difficult, but what was shown yesterday was not -- I mean, we would need to read a little more that is significant. If this conversation between the two colonels can be proven to have been ordered by the Iraqi authorities, it is a serious matter, unquestionably, because it proves that Iraq is refusing to live by its obligations under the resolutions of the United Nations, and in particular 14-41.

So, we've got to look at this with a certain amount of patience, especially because, by showing patience, we will have a much stronger chance of reconciling the rest of the region to the fact that we are taking this issue seriously.

MS. WARD: Obviously, you're not questioning Colin Powell's evidence -- just whether or not it came from a higher authority, it sounds like?

MR. PARMENTIER: No, I'm not questioning the elements. I'm questioning whether this is sufficiently serious to go to war, which is hardly a very light decision; which is a decision that one has to take when one is certain that this is the only way to disarm Iraq. I'm not even suggesting that containing Iraq would be sufficient, because that's my belief. On the other hand, I recognize that Resolution 14-41 obliges us to have him disarmed and obliges him to disarm. I do not even discuss that, although I think that, as a matter of fact, we could contain Iraq, which today is basically a spent force, and perhaps handle a little more vigorously some other nonproliferation problems that are much more serious, such as the ones created by Pakistan or North Korea, and possibly Iran.

MS. WARD: Here in the United States some analysts have suggested that France, if the United States and Britain and some other allies do take military action against Iraq, that France will eventually join in some capacity.

MR. PARMENTIER: No, I don't think that is true. If this is done as a sort of defiance of the United Nations, I think that we will not participate. I would be very surprised if France sent troops without a U-N resolution.

Now, the question for France would be more difficult, if, let's say, the terms of the resolution were difficult to accept, but not totally unacceptable, and that France would have the choice between voting the resolution -- which of course would mean sending troops -- or abstaining, or, indeed, vetoing, but I think that's unlikely.

I think France has maneuvered in order to be the only large country in Europe that remains with a margin of maneuver in this negotiation. Britain cannot maneuver because, essentially, even though they would very much prefer it to be done through the Security Council, I think that their statements have made it impossible for them not to join the U-S, come what may.

And Germany has put itself into a box because they have said that they would never vote for a resolution authorizing recourse to force or, of course, sending men into conflict, which, in a sense, has sort of marginalized them completely. So, France has kept a margin for maneuver, which no other large country in Europe has kept.

MS. WARD: You bring up an interesting point, because in some opinion pieces, France has been accused of "waffling."

MR. PARMENTIER: Well, let me put it this way. If you call "waffling" the fact of thinking very hard and taking one's time before going to war, I accept the fact that we "waffled." But I think it might be reasonable, before going to war, to think long and hard. This is not a decision that can be taken lightly.

Host: Guillaume Parmentier (gee-YOHM par-MAHN-tchee-a) is the director of the French Center on the United States at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris.

VNN/WH/NEB/TW