Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with John Huslman, Jeremy Shapiro

Aired March 08, 2003 - 07:10   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: A house divided. France, Germany, and Russia are solidly opposed to a war in Iraq, and so far, no amount of diplomatic discussion has changed their positions.
A new report by the Heritage Foundation says there are financial reasons for those countries and others against a war.

John Hulsman is a research fellow in European affairs at the Heritage Foundation. He developed the foundation's fact sheet on this issue. Thank you for being here, sir.

JOHN HULSMAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: A pleasure.

COLLINS: And with a different viewpoint, Jeremy Shapiro. He's the associate director of the Center on U.S. and France at the Brookings Institution. Thank you to you also for being here.

JEREMY SHAPIRO, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you.

COLLINS: John, I want to go ahead and start with you and talk a little bit about this fact sheet. There are several facts on it. Tell me what some of them are, the ones that stand out to you the most, and maybe a little bit about where you got the information, your sources.

HULSMAN: Well, I mean, we sourced this from a variety of sources, ranging from the State Department to the CIA fact sheet to almost everything we can find. A couple of the sources are double- or triple-checked.

But the ones that stand out to me are this. We're not saying that the economic motivation is the only reason that France, Germany, and Russia are holding the position they are. We're saying that national interests are at work here. This is nothing new under the sun. And one of those interests happens to be economic.

Numbers that stand out to me are, France has developed deals to, in fact, explore oil in Iraq, to the tune of about 25 percent of known Iraqi reserves, 30 billion barrels of oil deal has been done, and the French (UNINTELLIGIBLE) $6 billion in terms of arms sales back in the 1980s from Saddam.

To say this isn't a factor in the way that they think is foolish. To say that it's the only factor is equally foolish.

In addition to these facts, there's a Gaullist desire, as de Gaulle put it, a Directoire kind of system, where by Europe, in particular, Germany, Russia, and France, unite in some kind of way to form a pole of power in opposition to the United States.

When you add all these things together, economics and geopolitics, you get your answer.

COLLINS: I do see one of the sources here as the CIA "World Fact Book." But not everything comes from there. You say they're double- and triple-checked.

HULSMAN: Yes.

COLLINS: OK.

HULSMAN: No, that's absolutely right.

COLLINS: OK. And one that I would like to bring up in particular, it says that France became Iraq's largest European trading partner in 2001, also citing another statistic, $3.1 billion since 1996.

But Jeremy, I'm understanding that you do not agree with that figure. Is that right? You say it's taken out of context?

SHAPIRO: Yes, no, I think the figures are assumedly accurate. The problem is that they're so devoid of any political and economic context that they almost amount to propaganda.

The point about a figure such as $3.1 billion in trade is that for France, that represents less than 0.3 percent of its total trade. In a $1.5 trillion economy, it's essentially meaningless.

And, in fact, France's commercial interests would direct it in exactly the opposite direction than it's taking. France well knows that any oil contracts it might have with Iraq and the debt that it -- that Iraq has accumulated with it will not be repaid until sanctions are lifted. And there's no way that sanctions are going to be lifted while Saddam Hussein is in power.

So if they really were following their commercial interests, if it was even motivating them, it would, in fact, push them in the other direction. They would cynically trade their Security Council vote for a share in the spoils after the war, and that would guarantee a degree of repayment.

At the moment, they're looking at getting nothing, and so operating pretty much against their economic interests in Iraq.

COLLINS: John, would you agree with that?

HULSMAN: No, I wouldn't. I mean, part of that, I think, is certainly true. But again, I think that two things are happening here. One, the idea that the Security Council, until recently, was going to act, I don't think can be seen as a fait accompli, because for 12 years, 16 failed resolutions, Saddam has brilliantly divided the Security Council on a number of things. To think that that would go on into the future -- and remember that this is a crude -- the number you cited since '96, these are numbers that have been going on for a decade. I don't think it's a foolish compilation for the French to make.

Secondly, involved in this is that the future kind of oil exploration -- and Iraq has the second-highest-known oil reserves in the world, much of it undeveloped, the oil refinery system is indeed antiquated, from the 1980s -- so somebody's going to get a share of this pie. And the idea that Saddam is going to not be in power, I don't think can be taken as a given as shortly as about a year ago.

So these things didn't just happen now. The French just haven't done it. This is over a long period of time.

And the other thing is, the debt that they're owed. I mean, the French, of course, want the money back, as do the Russians...

COLLINS: Right, speaking...

HULSMAN: ... as does the United States.

COLLINS: ... speaking of that debt -- that's right -- I want to call up a quick graphic that we have made here, the external debt, $62.2 billion, you can see that there, I believe, at the bottom of the screen.

There's also some other graphics to look at here. Imports of $11 billion, that includes food, medicine, manufactures, and those partners would be France, Australia, China, and Russia. You can see the percentages broken down there. Exports of $15.8 billion in crude oil, and partners, U.S., though, being 46.2 percent. I'd love to hear what both of you think about that.

Go ahead, Jeremy.

SHAPIRO: Well, well, all countries have commercial interests in Iraq. I think that what we see is a lot of charges in Europe, claiming that the only motivation for the U.S. is economic interests because of that 46 percent that you just cited. That's equally -- an equally scurrilous charge, I think.

And these charges really only serve to help divide the coalition and embolden Saddam Hussein to challenge the international community.

I think that there are lots of good reasons for attacking Iraq and lots of bad reasons for attacking Iraq, and they're -- reasonable people can disagree on it. And throwing back and forth kind of out- of-context economic statistics doesn't really help the debate and doesn't really bring it forward, and, in fact, I think, hurts the overall diplomacy because it generates a lot of anger and makes Saddam Hussein think that he can divide the coalition and survive.

COLLINS: And John, does it also hurt the overall feeling and cohesion of the United Nations itself? I mean, what about the future of this organization? HULSMAN: Well, I think the future is very bleak indeed. I think the United Nations is nearing their Abyssinian moment. President Bush challenged them to not behave as the League of Nations, and I think they've done that.

And I think what these statistics say -- and I don't believe they're out of context, they're part of the context, certainly they're not all of that, and there, I think, we'd agree. This is one factor in what makes countries act. Nothing has changed. Power politics is about power, economics, ideology, and the world as it is. And the French have many, many motivations to behave in the way they do.

We're merely saying that economics are one of them, along with the Gaullist point of view, a general view about international law, a fear of the United States acting alone without other people in the world, which goes back to about 1946 if not before.

And this is merely one of a series of factors that's important.

COLLINS: Right.

HULSMAN: But what we thought we'd do is delineate that one factor in some details.

COLLINS: All right, to both of you, we appreciate your time this morning. Jeremy Shapiro and John Hulsman, thank you for...

SHAPIRO: Thank you.

COLLINS: ... filling us in...

HULSMAN: Pleasure.

COLLINS: ... on both sides of that story.

SHAPIRO: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired March 8, 2003 - 07:10   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: A house divided. France, Germany, and Russia are solidly opposed to a war in Iraq, and so far, no amount of diplomatic discussion has changed their positions.
A new report by the Heritage Foundation says there are financial reasons for those countries and others against a war.

John Hulsman is a research fellow in European affairs at the Heritage Foundation. He developed the foundation's fact sheet on this issue. Thank you for being here, sir.

JOHN HULSMAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: A pleasure.

COLLINS: And with a different viewpoint, Jeremy Shapiro. He's the associate director of the Center on U.S. and France at the Brookings Institution. Thank you to you also for being here.

JEREMY SHAPIRO, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thank you.

COLLINS: John, I want to go ahead and start with you and talk a little bit about this fact sheet. There are several facts on it. Tell me what some of them are, the ones that stand out to you the most, and maybe a little bit about where you got the information, your sources.

HULSMAN: Well, I mean, we sourced this from a variety of sources, ranging from the State Department to the CIA fact sheet to almost everything we can find. A couple of the sources are double- or triple-checked.

But the ones that stand out to me are this. We're not saying that the economic motivation is the only reason that France, Germany, and Russia are holding the position they are. We're saying that national interests are at work here. This is nothing new under the sun. And one of those interests happens to be economic.

Numbers that stand out to me are, France has developed deals to, in fact, explore oil in Iraq, to the tune of about 25 percent of known Iraqi reserves, 30 billion barrels of oil deal has been done, and the French (UNINTELLIGIBLE) $6 billion in terms of arms sales back in the 1980s from Saddam.

To say this isn't a factor in the way that they think is foolish. To say that it's the only factor is equally foolish.

In addition to these facts, there's a Gaullist desire, as de Gaulle put it, a Directoire kind of system, where by Europe, in particular, Germany, Russia, and France, unite in some kind of way to form a pole of power in opposition to the United States.

When you add all these things together, economics and geopolitics, you get your answer.

COLLINS: I do see one of the sources here as the CIA "World Fact Book." But not everything comes from there. You say they're double- and triple-checked.

HULSMAN: Yes.

COLLINS: OK.

HULSMAN: No, that's absolutely right.

COLLINS: OK. And one that I would like to bring up in particular, it says that France became Iraq's largest European trading partner in 2001, also citing another statistic, $3.1 billion since 1996.

But Jeremy, I'm understanding that you do not agree with that figure. Is that right? You say it's taken out of context?

SHAPIRO: Yes, no, I think the figures are assumedly accurate. The problem is that they're so devoid of any political and economic context that they almost amount to propaganda.

The point about a figure such as $3.1 billion in trade is that for France, that represents less than 0.3 percent of its total trade. In a $1.5 trillion economy, it's essentially meaningless.

And, in fact, France's commercial interests would direct it in exactly the opposite direction than it's taking. France well knows that any oil contracts it might have with Iraq and the debt that it -- that Iraq has accumulated with it will not be repaid until sanctions are lifted. And there's no way that sanctions are going to be lifted while Saddam Hussein is in power.

So if they really were following their commercial interests, if it was even motivating them, it would, in fact, push them in the other direction. They would cynically trade their Security Council vote for a share in the spoils after the war, and that would guarantee a degree of repayment.

At the moment, they're looking at getting nothing, and so operating pretty much against their economic interests in Iraq.

COLLINS: John, would you agree with that?

HULSMAN: No, I wouldn't. I mean, part of that, I think, is certainly true. But again, I think that two things are happening here. One, the idea that the Security Council, until recently, was going to act, I don't think can be seen as a fait accompli, because for 12 years, 16 failed resolutions, Saddam has brilliantly divided the Security Council on a number of things. To think that that would go on into the future -- and remember that this is a crude -- the number you cited since '96, these are numbers that have been going on for a decade. I don't think it's a foolish compilation for the French to make.

Secondly, involved in this is that the future kind of oil exploration -- and Iraq has the second-highest-known oil reserves in the world, much of it undeveloped, the oil refinery system is indeed antiquated, from the 1980s -- so somebody's going to get a share of this pie. And the idea that Saddam is going to not be in power, I don't think can be taken as a given as shortly as about a year ago.

So these things didn't just happen now. The French just haven't done it. This is over a long period of time.

And the other thing is, the debt that they're owed. I mean, the French, of course, want the money back, as do the Russians...

COLLINS: Right, speaking...

HULSMAN: ... as does the United States.

COLLINS: ... speaking of that debt -- that's right -- I want to call up a quick graphic that we have made here, the external debt, $62.2 billion, you can see that there, I believe, at the bottom of the screen.

There's also some other graphics to look at here. Imports of $11 billion, that includes food, medicine, manufactures, and those partners would be France, Australia, China, and Russia. You can see the percentages broken down there. Exports of $15.8 billion in crude oil, and partners, U.S., though, being 46.2 percent. I'd love to hear what both of you think about that.

Go ahead, Jeremy.

SHAPIRO: Well, well, all countries have commercial interests in Iraq. I think that what we see is a lot of charges in Europe, claiming that the only motivation for the U.S. is economic interests because of that 46 percent that you just cited. That's equally -- an equally scurrilous charge, I think.

And these charges really only serve to help divide the coalition and embolden Saddam Hussein to challenge the international community.

I think that there are lots of good reasons for attacking Iraq and lots of bad reasons for attacking Iraq, and they're -- reasonable people can disagree on it. And throwing back and forth kind of out- of-context economic statistics doesn't really help the debate and doesn't really bring it forward, and, in fact, I think, hurts the overall diplomacy because it generates a lot of anger and makes Saddam Hussein think that he can divide the coalition and survive.

COLLINS: And John, does it also hurt the overall feeling and cohesion of the United Nations itself? I mean, what about the future of this organization? HULSMAN: Well, I think the future is very bleak indeed. I think the United Nations is nearing their Abyssinian moment. President Bush challenged them to not behave as the League of Nations, and I think they've done that.

And I think what these statistics say -- and I don't believe they're out of context, they're part of the context, certainly they're not all of that, and there, I think, we'd agree. This is one factor in what makes countries act. Nothing has changed. Power politics is about power, economics, ideology, and the world as it is. And the French have many, many motivations to behave in the way they do.

We're merely saying that economics are one of them, along with the Gaullist point of view, a general view about international law, a fear of the United States acting alone without other people in the world, which goes back to about 1946 if not before.

And this is merely one of a series of factors that's important.

COLLINS: Right.

HULSMAN: But what we thought we'd do is delineate that one factor in some details.

COLLINS: All right, to both of you, we appreciate your time this morning. Jeremy Shapiro and John Hulsman, thank you for...

SHAPIRO: Thank you.

COLLINS: ... filling us in...

HULSMAN: Pleasure.

COLLINS: ... on both sides of that story.

SHAPIRO: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com