NYT: Chirac Urges a Transfer of Power

[kskiska]

PARIS, Sept. 21 — President Jacques Chirac called today for the immediate transfer of sovereignty in Iraq to the Iraqi people, and indicated that France would approve only a new United Nations resolution that recognized this need.

In an hourlong interview at Élysée Palace, Mr. Chirac for the first time laid out a two-stage plan for Iraqi self-rule, the first stage being a symbolic transfer of sovereignty from American hands to the existing 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, followed by the gradual ceding of real power over a period of about six to nine months.

The French president added that if the Security Council, France included, could agree on empowering Iraqis at once, France would be ready to train Iraqi police officers and soldiers — either in or out of Iraq. Mr. Chirac also said France had no intention of sending troops to be part of the American-led military occupation force, although he suggested that circumstances could change.

(snip)

Without Iraqi self-rule, he said, there is the dangerous situation of a "governor who is Christian and foreign" administering an Arab and Muslim country, and that is "a very difficult situation for any people to accept in the 21st century."

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/international/22CHIR.html?hp

[BattyDem]

1. Now if only we could get ...

good ol' Jacques to call for the immediate transfer of America to the American people! :P

[NickDanger]

2. This will be an interesting week at the UN

eom

[PennyLane]

3. The $$$ Bush is skimming off the War Funds............

.......must not have been enough to bribe the French! Maybe he didn't
offer up enough barrels of oil to go with it!

[BonjourUSA]

5. You're absolutely wrong

it's an affair of principles.

If Chirac would have said anything else, the "French cheese eater surrender monkeys" (a little long, I am not sure of the spelling) would be in the streets for a mass demonstration again

[Minstrel Boy]

4. The real news is buried in the story:

"Mr. Chirac made clear that he did not intend to veto that resolution, unless it became 'provocative.' He explained, 'We don't have the intention to oppose. If we oppose it, that would mean voting "no," that is to say, to use the veto. I am not in that mind-set at all.'"

Looks like Bush might get his fig leaf after all.