US embassy cable - 05PARIS7317

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007317 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
DEPT FOR INR/R/MR; IIP/RW; IIP/RNY; BBG/VOA; IIP/WEU; AF/PA; 
EUR/WE /P/SP; D/C (MCCOO); EUR/PA; INR/P; INR/EUC; PM; OSC ISA 
FOR ILN; NEA; WHITE HOUSE FOR NSC/WEUROPE; DOC FOR ITA/EUR/FR 
AND PASS USTR/PA; USINCEUR FOR PAO; NATO/PA; MOSCOW/PA; 
ROME/PA; USVIENNA FOR USDEL OSCE. 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC, KMDR, FR 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION REPORT - Middle East - Iraqi 
Constitution - Syria 
PARIS - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 
 
 
(A) SUBJECTS COVERED IN TODAY'S REPORT: 
 
Middle East - Iraqi Constitution - Syria 
 
B) SUMMARY OF COVERAGE: 
 
Most headlines are devoted to domestic social and economic 
stories, with France's new controversial anti-terrorism 
measures eliciting several commentaries and reactions from 
civil liberties proponents. 
 
In international news the results of the Iraqi vote on the 
Constitution is front-paged in Le Figaro: "Constitution 
Adopted by 78 Percent of the Population." But above this title 
the headline reads: "Inside Baghdad, Gripped by Chaos." The 
story from correspondent Adrien Jaulmes states that "Baghdad 
has become the world's most dangerous city." The editorial 
emphasizes the importance of "the democratic" process which is 
taking root in Iraq. It also notes that an exit strategy can 
only be a regional exit strategy. In Le Monde, political 
analyst Daniel Vernet writes a harsh commentary entitled: 
"Iraq: Security or Democracy." (See Part C) 
 
Today's second major international story concerns Syria and 
the negotiations underway at the UN. In Le Monde Natalie 
Nougayrede suggests that "Washington and Paris have different 
priorities. A situation that could endanger the new Franco- 
American rapprochement which was recently confirmed by 
Nicholas Burns when he said in Paris that `the hatchet was 
definitely buried.'" The different approaches on possible 
sanctions against Syria is also reported in Le Figaro, while 
La Croix picks up the request by Syria's Ambassador to France 
for renewed contact between Damascus and Paris. (See Part C) 
 
Liberation devotes its lead to the "dwindling assistance" from 
the West to the survivors of the earthquake in Pakistan. 
Editorialist Patrick Sabatier comments: "There is the 
suspicion that the West is quicker to help survivors who share 
similar cultural and ethnic background. The people of Kashmir 
happen to unfortunately live in a region whose access is 
prohibited to tourists because of a war and in a country, 
Pakistan, whose reputation is execrable because it is a haven 
for Islamic terrorists." 
Le Figaro carries an op-ed by President Chirac titled "Europe 
Needs Strength and Solidarity" which is simultaneously carried 
in 24 outlets in the other European capitals, including the 
Financial Times. 
 
Financial La Tribune interviews Catherine Colonna, Minister 
for European Affairs, on the controversy about the European 
Commissioner's mandate at the WTO: "France wants the success 
of the international trade negotiations. But these include 
more than agriculture; they include industry and the service 
sector. And for the time being our partners' offers are only 
on agriculture, and they are insufficient at that. We would 
like to see fewer concessions made on agriculture and more 
ambitious offers on the industry and service sectors. While it 
is the EU Commission that negotiates at the WTO, it does so in 
the name and interests of its members and within its mandate. 
A proposal that would be made outside the mandate would not 
engage a commitment from Europe. Europe is already one of the 
world's most open markets." 
 
(C) SUPPORTING TEXT/BLOCK QUOTES: 
 
Middle East - Iraqi Constitution - Syria 
 
"An Out For Iraq" 
Pierre Rousselin in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/26): "The 
Iraqi Constitution is not ideal but it has the advantage of 
existing. Its adoption by the people of Iraq proves that the 
electoral process is beginning to take root where dictatorship 
was the only known system. The White House has heavily 
invested in this project. It is all the more relieved because 
now it can seriously begin to think about a pull out. After 
the December 15 legislative elections, the Americans will be 
in a position to say `mission accomplished.' and start to send 
their soldiers home. What better prospect with the mid-term 
elections in the U.S. getting closer? Of course in Iraq 
everyone is aware of America's calculus. And as things become 
clearer, these ulterior motives become more evident. Will the 
end of the occupation be a deliverance, as some want to 
believe? Meanwhile violence continues. Many Iraqis feel that a 
precipitous pull out will only accelerate a general conflict. 
And no one wants this, including the Shiites and the Kurds, or 
neighboring countries, such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. 
The resolution of the crisis must be part of a regional plan. 
And the mission in Iraq of the Arab League Secretary General 
is an encouraging first step." 
 
"Iraq: Security or Democracy" 
Daniel Vernet in left-of-center Le Monde (10/26): "The 
positive election results in Iraq, after those in Afghanistan 
do not justify interventions in `failing' or `rogue' nations 
by other nations or by international organizations. It is not 
enough to be a `benevolent hegemon' as Francis Fukuyama said, 
one need also be a `competent hegemon.' The least that can be 
said is that this is not the case with the U.S. in Iraq. After 
the initial military campaign, the U.S. made irretrievable 
mistakes in its `state building.' The first obligation of an 
interventionist nation is to secure the population's safety. 
Insecurity is endangering the entire reconstruction process. 
In Iraq, the U.S. hesitated between order and democracy, 
coercion and negotiation, occupation and transfer of power. 
The temptation for many state builders is to impose artificial 
structures, which do not correspond to local traditions or 
societies. In other words, implementing democracy in these far 
away regions requires time. Its rhythm does not coincide with 
our western electoral calendars." 
 
"The UN Hesitates About Sanctioning Syria" 
Jean-Louis Turlin in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/26): 
"Sanctions or no sanctions? The talks at the UN will be 
delicate: while everyone agrees that the goal is to get 
Syria's full cooperation, the choice of method is a different 
story. France will probably be mandated to search for a 
diplomatic solution because of its influence in the region. 
But the White House has already increased the pressure and 
said `a military option is always a President's last resort.' 
Because the American President's vision includes a series of 
international demands, such as the expulsion of Palestinian 
terrorists. the French fear that the chances for a unanimous 
vote on the resolution could be compromised. For this same 
reason, talks of sanctions are raised with the up most 
caution." 
 
"Bachar al-Assad Wants to Resume its Dialogue with Paris" 
Agnes Rotivel in Catholic La Croix (10/26): "The young Syrian 
President does not understand that after 9/11 things changed 
drastically. His blindness is isolating Syria even more, 
including within the Arab world. Paris is one of the few 
European capitals which continues to keep ties with Damascus. 
But it is now annoyed with Syria's autism. The Syrian 
Ambassador to France acknowledged that French ministers are no 
longer traveling to Damascus: `We want to renew the dialogue, 
but a dialogue takes two people.' she said on French 
television. France is clear: the priority is bringing the 
people responsible for Hariri's assassination to justice. But 
will Bachar Al-Assad cooperate? And will Paris be able to 
convince Washington to wait until after December 15 before it 
begins sanctioning the regime?" 
 
"France and the U.S. Have Different Priorities Regarding 
Syria" 
Natalie Nougayrede in left-of-center Le Monde (10/26): 
"France's diplomacy is involved in a difficult balancing act: 
while it tries to preserve a strong cooperation with the 
Americans on the Syrian issue, it is also insisting on 
different priorities. As a French diplomat said, France's 
focus is on Lebanon. It does not see eye to eye with the 
American administration on a change of regime in Syria. While 
there is a partnership between France and the U.S. on Syria, 
from the start the White House has adopted a different 
viewpoint from France's. While France has wanted to reaffirm 
its position in Lebanon, President Bush's entourage has been 
more concerned with a regional perspective: including putting 
an end to the infiltration of fighters coming from Syria into 
Iraq. This discrepancy between French and American ambitions 
and intentions is today out in the open. While a French source 
says that Paris has no ulterior political motives regarding 
the Mehlis report and its consequences, the subtext is that 
the Americans do. As long as the issue at stake is the 
investigation and getting Syria to cooperate, France's 
position will be close to the American position, even if the 
tone in Paris is less aggressive than in Washington. If on the 
other hand there is in Washington a semantic shift towards 
`fighting against terrorism' or `changing the regime' this 
could cause a break or at least visible friction. The newly 
erected Franco-American rapprochement, recently saluted by 
Nicholas Burns during a stop in Paris when he said that `the 
hatchet is definitely buried,' could well be undergoing its 
first test." STAPLETON