May 12, 2003 5 min read

There is no older strategic alliance than that of the United States and France. Relations between these two friends of 230 years have rarely been as damaged as they are today. Is this reasonable? The answer is no. The two nations share the same values, the same culture, the same economic interests. … It would be ridiculous to fall out over a question, Iraq, that is peripheral compared to the vital interests of our countries. It is too early to judge the results of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. … France’s job is to do everything so that the Americans succeed, because the interest of the entire West is at stake. …

The urgency is to re-establish relations … with our American allies. This means not responding to anti-French excesses from the hawks at the Pentagon, who don’t represent eternal America. It means following without rest trans-Atlantic cooperation in the fight against terrorism. …

On Berlusconi’s corruption trial:

The rule for every country with a worthy political ruling class is implicit: We can make war at home, but once in Europe we play together. This is not only an objective choice of political convenience, but most of all, a moral obligation. Undermining one another has no winners or losers, when it comes to Europe. The only result is the loss of image, both to the country and its establishment. Silvio Berlusconi, through his trial testimony, has tossed this rule of institutional cohabitation to the sea just as he is about to preside over Europe.

Through fortuitous circumstances, Italy, although not equipped with a strong enough system to assert its authority within the European community, will take its turn in the rotating presidency with three prominent protagonists: the president of the EU Commission Romano Prodi, the vice president of the EU’s constitutional convention Giuliano Amato, and Berlusconi who, as fate would have it, has the privilege of presiding over the European Council for six months.

Hoping to save himself from the justice system, (Berlusconi) has tried to pull Italy’s only officials at the European level into the fight. In doing so, he has demonstrated that he has not taken into account the precarious prestige that the Italian establishment has managed to miraculously earn in Europe. The remaining hope is that neither Prodi nor Amato lower themselves to his level.

On choice of Iraqi political leaders:

With all the theories and plans – some of them absurd – being floated for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq, wisdom, common sense and principles appear more and more as rare commodities.

That is why it’s refreshing to listen to Adnan Pachachi, a veteran diplomat and politician who served in several Iraqi governments before the advent to power of the Baath Party. Pachachi was against the war in the first place. His voice stands out amongst the loudest and most influential against the U.S. monopolization of the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. Contrary to other opposition figures who have welcomed the U.S. military presence in Iraq and have even asked the American troops to stay for two years, Pachachi is a firm voice against any form of rule by the coalition. Pachachi sounds like a moderate, democratic voice to which Iraqis could cling at these trying times.

These are figures Iraq now needs. Patriots interested first and foremost in the preservation of state property and assets, vigilant custodians who would make sure that no one takes advantage of the absence of a full-fledged national government to rob Iraqis of what is theirs.

On Guantanamo Bay prisoners:

Is it reasonable that American military courts should sentence foreigners for crimes committed abroad? To keep suspects jailed for so long without trial is against all Western legal principles. Of all those arrested, a great many must of course be either innocent or relatively minor accomplices. They should either have been released, charged, moved to normal jails or sent home to their respective countries. The United States demands special treatment for Americans in the International Court of Justice before cooperating. Besides, the United States seems to think it has an obvious right to sentence other countries’ citizens in trials where it could be suspected of having a special, national angle of approach.

Can’t the Americans distinguish between politics and law?

On the British Embassy:

The rope on the flagpole is broken and the sandstone-and-timber Ottoman building is dirty and run-down. But the old British Embassy in Baghdad is back in business.

Four diplomats have already arrived… Of the many countries that at the time broke diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein, the British are the first to return. Their presence is not merely a symbol of a determination to rekindle a once-close relationship between the two countries; it is a vital step in co-ordinating the aid, political involvement, logistical support and military role for which Britain, as America’s principal partner in the war coalition, has responsibility for many months to come.