Joerg,

I think you are probably correct about EU governments not openly violating the sanctions. But as far as France's attitude toward Iraq was concerned, please provide us with specific reasons why France, and Russia, would veto Rolf Ekeus' nomination as executive chairman of UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC was the group that followed UNSCOM, the group established to disarm Saddam after the first Gulf War. Ekeus was the first executive chairman of UNSCOM and earned high marks from everyone except Saddam, but when he was nominated by Kofi Annan to chair UNMOVIC both France and Russia vetoed him. (The Greatest Threat, Richard Butler p. 227). Hans Blix, who was acceptable to Saddam, was nominated instead. (The Greatest Threat, Richard Butler p. 228).

What is really interesting is that Saddam offered Ekeus $2 million dollars to doctor his reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

So Saddam doesn't want Ekeus, who he couldn't bribe, and does want Blix who had worked in Iraq previously as head of the IAEA from 1981 to 1997. The same IAEA that had no idea Saddam was developing atomic, chemical, and biological weapons.

You should really read the book “The Greatest Threat” by Richard Butler (the second UNSCOM chair), but only after you develop a list of specific valid reasons for France and Russia to reject Rolf Ekeus' nomination.

You may not be in the business of defending France and Russia, but Joschka Fischer was in the business of defending the UN at that time and he didn't come up with any reasons either. He also didn't come up with any good reasons why China should be able to violate the sanctions against Iraq and install a $1 billion dollar fiber communications system that was to have been employed by Baghdad's military and internal security infrastructures, including its air defense command. (The Threatening Storm, Kenneth Pollack p xxviii)

The actions of three members of the UN Security Council raised serious questions about their commitment to disarm Iraq, but no one opposed to the Iraq war ever mentioned them. Everything was always President Bush's fault. To say that the Europeans acted like sanctimonious prigs is an understatement.- But at least it established a precedent the the US may use in the future. If Russia decides to move west, Europe should have no objections to us selling short range weapons to them, after we remove all of our NATO troops of course.

Hans Blix – Do you mean that he was the head of the IAEA for ten years and had no idea Iraq was very close to having a nuclear weapon is no reason to discredit him? He may be such an insufferable idiot that there was no reason for Saddam to bribe him. I have no idea, but the fact is he was blissfully unaware of Iraq's nuclear program.

Scott Ritter: “First, the resignation, tendered in a letter to me. In the letter Ritter stated his view that UNSCOM's task had become impossible and that illusory disarmament action was worse than none.” (The Greatest Threat, p179)

There is quite a bit more, too much for me to type. Butler disputes Ritter's criticisms of UNSCOM and himself, and states that he wanted to exceed the limits of UNSCOM's mission, but states :”Ritter was an outstanding field officer: tough, determined, able. I was impressed by the extent of his knowledge about Iraq and the concealment mechanism.”

No one has been able to determine why Ritter changed his views so dramatically, but he received $400,000 to produce a film that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process from a friend of Saddam. Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the reason for his change of heart.

Yes “The Greatest Threat” is about Iraqi WMD's. Richard Butler was the second UNSCOM director.

Scott Ritter:

Link to his opening statement to the Senate in 1998:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1998_h/ws915981.htm

Link to a summary of his appearance at that hearing:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/09/980907-in.htm


On the US not really being interested in sanctions:

From Richard Butler’s book:

“Three permanent members of the Security Council of the United nations – the lawmaker and enforcer in this field – have decided to end any serious effort to disarm Saddam, to oblige him to conform with the law. Russia, France, and China have done this because they prefer to pursue their own national interests rather than carry out their international responsibility.” (The Greatest Threat xvi).


Notice that he didn’t mention the US or Great Britian.

Operation Desert Fox: “On December 8, UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler informed the Security Council that Iraq was continuing to impede the inspectors. On the fifteenth, after having withdrawn his staff from Iraq in expectation of an Anglo-American military operation, Butler delivered a formal report to the United Nations stating that Iraq was continuing to engage in a repeated pattern of obstruction and deception. The next day, the United States and Great Britian launched Operation Desert Fox, the mission they had halted in November, a limited punitive operation uncoupled from any coercive demands on Saddam.” (The Threatening Storm p92)

Intelligence:

Intelligence is a difficult business. True. What is interesting is that all the historical examples you list, except Iraqi WMDs are examples of underestimating problems. Are you surprised that President Bush, along with almost every European country believed Saddam had WMDs?

Oil for food:

“Today, the sanctions are hemorrhaging. Whereas as recently as 1999, Saddam’s regime netted only about $350 million, in 2002 it will rake in $2.5 to $3 billion, representing 15 to 22 percent of all Iraqi revenue.” (The Threatening Storm p 214)

The sanctions problem became more serious over time.

I have tried to answer all questions related to my original post, but no one has attempted to answer my original question: Give me one good reason Russia and France opposed the nomination of Rolf Ekeus to head UNMOVIC?

Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was the correct option, the actions of European countries were disgusting. Sanctimonious prigs overly impressed with themselves. If Kohl had been in charge of Germany I am sure Germany’s reaction would not have been insulting. Germany may not have supported the US but it would not have glorified in insulting it.

Actually Dave, I was talking about 1991 when Saddam did come very close to having a nuclear weapon. And as for how old I am I will be 64 in a week so I doubt if I would have been accepted if I had volunteered. I did spend 1967 in Vietnam though.