Setting the Record Straight
Jean-David Levitte is the Ambassador of France to the United States
As Tony Blair gets lambasted for backing the Iraq war, it is worth noting that the current strain in U.S.-British relations is hardly the first induced by war. Twenty-four years ago, London was dismayed by Washington's lack of support during the Falklands War -- an episode that shows both how complex the allies' relationship has been during times of crisis and how resilient it can be afterward.
To the Editor:
In his survey of U.S.-British relations, Lawrence Freedman writes, "The decision by French President Jacques Chirac to oppose war regardless of what [UN] inspectors found put [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair's whole diplomatic strategy in jeopardy" ("The Special Relationship, Then and Now," May/June 2006).
I would like to correct this misrepresentation of France's policy on Iraq. France strongly supported the return of UN inspectors to Iraq and actively participated in drafting UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which told Iraq to comply with previous UN resolutions. Our position on the question of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was that we needed to have the UN inspectors assess the situation and measure Iraq's cooperation. Had there been evidence of a secret WMD program or a blatant lack of cooperation with the inspection process on the part of Iraq, we would have ruled out no option, including, as a last resort, military strikes, had that been the decision of the Security Council.
France eventually opposed a rush to war after considering the inspectors' reports because there was no imminent threat to international peace and security or evidence of a WMD program and because Iraq had started to actively cooperate with the inspectors, including by destroying its al Samoud-2 missiles.
Jean-David Levitte
Ambassador of France to the United States
Related
As Tony Blair gets lambasted for backing the Iraq war, it is worth noting that the current strain in U.S.-British relations is hardly the first induced by war. Twenty-four years ago, London was dismayed by Washington's lack of support during the Falklands War -- an episode that shows both how complex the allies' relationship has been during times of crisis and how resilient it can be afterward.
THE recent Anglo-French negotiations have again focused attention on the problem of the limitation of naval armaments. Nothing is so calculated to whet the appetite of the public as an international agreement of which the existence is known and the text withheld. Now that the text of this agreement has been published the element in it which is surprising is its futility. It is hard to see by what chain of reasoning its authors persuaded themselves that it would afford a basis for a general naval understanding.
IF Great Britain, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, should blockade the territory of a state that had gone to war in contempt of its peace pledge as a member of the League, what would the United States do? Sometimes the question is put thus: Is it conceivable that the American and British navies might some day clash because the United States stood for its full rights as a neutral? These queries, which are not infrequently heard, point to a major problem of American diplomacy.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.