FRANCE/UN: France's foreign minister appears to be switching signals on Iraq, making it difficult for observers to interpret his position, writes Lara Marlowe in Paris.
France's position in the Iraq crisis is such a masterpiece of ambiguity that French newspapers were not sure how to interpret statements by the Foreign Minister, Mr Dominique de Villepin, following the US Secretary of State's presentation at the United Nations on Wednesday.
"France sticks to its position," said the headline of Libération. This was contradicted by Le Parisien, whose four-inch headline announced, "France: a step towards war".
Mr de Villepin's remarks in the Security Council, and on Europe 1 radio yesterday, could be construed to mean that France may join in a war against Iraq, or that it will attempt to draw out weapons inspections indefinitely to avoid a conflict.
Following Mr Powell's discourse, Mr de Villepin said that if weapons inspections failed, "we exclude no option, including, as a last resort, the use of force". He claimed this had always been the French position.
But since January, he and President Jacques Chirac no longer mentioned force, and gave the impression they were aligning themselves with the more pacifist German position.
Then yesterday, Mr de Villepin seemed to switch signals again, saying, "We've said from the beginning that there can be no automatic use of force." Some saw Mr de Villepin's offer of Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft to overfly Iraq as a sign of French eagerness to become involved militarily.
And the Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which France contributed to the Afghan war, left port in Toulon on Tuesday, ostensibly for manoeuvres.
Deployment of the Mirage IVs, which were used to gather photographic and electronic intelligence over the Balkans and Afghanistan, could defuse tension over Baghdad's refusal to allow American U2s to fly. Iraqi stubbornness over the U2s has forced the US to rely on Predator drones and satellite data. The Iraqis say the U2s are working for US intelligence rather than the UN, and they demand that the US and Britain stop bombardments in the north and south of Iraq before the U2s fly.
A new sense of urgency has crept into Mr de Villepin's rhetoric, perhaps in response to US impatience. At the Security Council meeting, he said Baghdad must comply with inspectors' demands "without delay" and he mentioned the inspectors' next report to the council on February 14th. Asked yesterday how much time should be allotted to resolve outstanding issues, Mr de Villepin used the word "rapidly" for the first time.
Paris takes pride in having forced President Bush to go through the Security Council last autumn, but in recent weeks it "gave the impression of a lack of solidarity with the West", Mr Claude Imbert, the director of the right-wing weekly Le Point wrote. By opposing Washington, France "risks insulting our past and our future", he continued. "Solitude starts out well, but it ends badly."
Mr de Villepin repeated yesterday that "this is not a debate between French and Americans. We've been friends for centuries, and we shall remain so tomorrow."
Nonetheless, Le Monde reported tension between the French minister and his US counterpart at luncheon after the Security Council meeting. Mr Powell was infuriated by Mr de Villepin's threat last month to use the French veto, and he could not have been pleased that the Frenchman followed up the US presentation with a counter-proposal for strengthened inspections, including tripling the number of inspectors and appointing a permanent UN co-ordinator for the disarmament of Iraq.
The fact that Germany immediately endorsed the French proposals made it look like Paris and Berlin were in league against Washington.
Some of President Chirac's closest associates say they do not know what he will decide. If the weapons inspectors discover incontrovertible proof of gross Iraqi violations, Paris would probably join in a war. If not, a consensus is emerging that France would abstain rather than confront the US.
"If France voted for war now, it would be difficult to justify vis-à-vis public opinion," Mr Francois Heisbourg, the president of the Strategic Studies Foundation, said. "And if it vetoed a resolution, the international consequences would be too unpredictable."