Chirac has never been a politician afraid to make his opinion felt. And after a relatively quiet spell, where he has been almost (but not quite) reticent with grand pronouncements, the French president got back to his accustomed strident form on Thursday: In a speech given at a nuclear submarine base in Brittany, Chirac said France would be willing to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it. Chirac reserved the right for France to use nuclear weapons against rogue states who sponser large-scale terror attacks against France.  

A French response, he said, could be "conventional. It could also be of another nature." Chirac's words certainly drew the world's eyes to France -- hardly an unwelcome result for the attention-loving president -- and in Germany, a country where a lot of people are uncomfortable with nuclear power, not to mention nuclear weapons, commentators are hotly debating whether Chirac is showing mettle or hubris.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung is skeptical about Chirac's motives. "(It's) as if he wanted to show the nation and the whole world that he is still a force to be reckoned with…. More than a decade after the passing of the outmoded patterns of enmity, Jacques Chirac has brought the old doctrine of deterrence right up to date." The commentator believes that while Chirac is purposefully remaining vague about the countries he has in mind, the fact that his comments come at a time when Iran's atomic ambitions are at the top of the agenda is no coincidence. The difference between the old policy of nuclear deterrence and today's threat, the paper concludes, is that in the Cold War you could predict how potential enemies would react. "We can only hope that the countries which Chirac is referring to, have retained at least the remnants of good sense."

The conservative Die Welt also believes that it is no coincidence that Chirac's speech coincides with the atomic crisis in Iran and applauds the French president's stance. "France does not want to stand powerless in the face of terrorists, and the countries which support them…. The attempt here is to use the rule of law to rein in the forces of chaos and bring about peace. Chirac is trying to restore atomic force into the stabilizing influence it was during the era of nuclear bipolarity. The conditions have changed radically though: Instead of chess, we are playing a wild game of dice…. Is that good? No, but inescapable." The commentator winds up by saying that the president should be thanked for both "assessing danger and a strategy of self-assertion."

The Financial Times Deutschland also believes that Chirac's words were not simply motivated by hubris, although reminding the world that "La Grande Nation" is an atomic power certainly played a role. "Basically the president demanded that the West should allow itself to also use non-conventional means to respond to the threat of terror." However the editorialist goes on to say, that although it is right to change security policies to fit in with new threats, Chirac is making an error of judgement in this particular case. During the Cold War "the balance of atomic power and the principle of a possible counter strike prevented attacks. The atom bomb is, as Chirac emphasized in his speech, not a weapon to be used in individual attacks. But then he contradicts himself by speculating about possible strikes in the same breath. What scenario does Chirac have in mind? Should we have thrown a bomb at Riad after September 11 because most of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia? Or at unsuspecting Iraq?Unthinkable." The main problem is that the "new sources of instability" which Chirac is thinking about, such as suicide bombers, will hardly be impressed by his words "as they don't ascribe to the logic of deterrence."

"Jacques Chirac will be sure to get gratitude from the world's would-be atomic powers for this speech," opens the left-leaning Berliner Zeitung. "Not only did the French president underline the right of his country to do what most nuclear states think goes without saying: to use nuclear force in response to an attack from weapons of mass destruction. Chirac even increased the possibilities of when atomic weapons could be enlisted." The commentator believes that, in view of the current Iran crisis, Chirac's speech "is a disaster. How can we persuade countries ... to do without nuclear weapons in the future, if nuclear states say that, in the interests of security, they have to not only maintain their nuclear weapons, but even should be able to use them in an initial attack? If conventionally well armed NATO countries, such as France, argue this way, then you can understand when countries with much weaker conventional arsenals also start thinking they need nuclear weapons in order to be sufficiently armed." The paper concludes by warning Chirac that "as far as the Iran crisis goes, nothing will be solved by sabre rattling."

"Jacques Chirac is flexing his muscles," says the financial daily Handelsblatt. "That is actually nothing new for a French politician. After all many of them are plagued by the underlying fear that the 'Grande Nation' is not seen as such, let alone respected, by the rest of the world. Until now such attitudes did not need to be taken too seriously." But this latest bout of posturing, says the commentator, is more worrying. "Threatening with nuclear arms is more than simply looking after national pride." The paper finds it hard to believe that Chirac could seriously use the nuclear option as a back-up for failed diplomacy, mainly because many of the countries in question are important sources for oil. "Whoever postures like Chirac, is obviously being counterproductive. And not only when it comes to Iran. Chirac should look to George W. Bush for example, who may like to use a bellicose tone of voice, but still speaks of various options in the fight against terror, rather than bringing the taboo word "nuclear weapon" into the debate."

-- Damien McGuinness
11:00 a.m. CET
__________________________________________

Bin Laden's Back

Like a B-horror movie comedy corpse that just won't stay under the coffin lid, Osama Bin Laden popped up again on Thursday. After a 13 month silence, a taped video message was broadcast on the Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera. In the message bin Laden makes an appeal to the US public to push for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and offers a ceasefire to Bush's administration. The reply from the US government was a flat 'no.' We don't negotiate with terrorists, it said. 

But if nothing else, this does prove that the al-Qaida leader is still alive, despite the fact that intelligence officials were assuming (or rather hoping) he was already dead. Assumed to be hiding in the mountainous area along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the video certainly begs the question of how is it possible the most powerful country in the world is unable to track down one man.

Apart from a couple of short news stories saying it happened, bin Laden's taped message got scant reaction from German editorialists on Friday. At SPIEGEL ONLINE however, our very own analyst Yassin Musharbash, listened to the message and analysed its ramifications. He recognizes the significance of the video as it could unfortunately become a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Again and again, people acting on their own and without direct orders, have been inspired to action by bin Laden's messages… the tape could also help bin Laden's supporters hang on for a while to the dream of al-Qaida: Their great idol is still alive, is promising major acts and, by offering a ceasefire, is pushing himself forward as political and religious leader of the entire Islamic world." 

Musharbash, however, is skeptical about how dangerous today's bin Laden really is, saying that a message like this would have been much more dangerous before 2001. "It is hard to imagine how al-Qaida would today be in a position to pull off an attack of the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. Attacks like London and Madrid are relatively easy to organize and hard to prevent. As far as a second 9/11 goes, the opposite is the case. Bin Laden's boastful words don't change any of this. "Never before has the al-Qaida leader made such concrete threats and it's been a long time since he has given the impression of having information about current plans in the offing. If nothing happens, once the initial PR effect has evaporated, he will increasingly become a lame man in a cave who can't even keep his own word."

-- Damien McGuinness
1:45 p.m. CET
___________________________________________

What Were German Spies Really Doing in Iraq?

Media reports last week, accusing German intelligence agents of helping the United States choose bombing targets in Iraq have unleashed a heated debate in Germany. On Friday the issue landed in the German parliament, when the Bundestag held a televised discussion on the matter. And on Monday opposition leaders intend to meet to decide whether to push for a parliamentary investigation.  

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung starts by pointing out that the Bundestag debate will no doubt, once again, “proclaim the worthy cause of the secret service mission” and goes on to mock the official line that “the intelligence agents had only helped the Americans to identify civilian buildings in order to avoid any ‘mistaken’ bombings.” The paper then sets up the wildly speculative “hypothetical possibility” that US agents might have twisted intelligence information to their advantage, tempting important target individuals into civilian buildings, such as deserted embassy buildings, before they were bombed. “That this did not happen and that -- to the best of our current knowledge -- no German intelligence information led directly to bombings in Iraq” is entirely luck. No thanks to the German government or its intelligent services, the commentator concludes.

The conservative Die Welt, on the opposite side of the political spectrum, stays focused on the matter in hand: whether or not a parliamentary investigation is necessary. “The excitement regarding the affair is artificial” states the paper and goes on to say that “certain fractions of the SPD Social Democratic Party and of the Green party expected Germany to break off all ties with the US and are now upset with their former government. That is regrettable, but is a case for a good psychologist, not a parliamentary investigation."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung steps back and takes a look at the bigger picture: The German and French “NO” to the American-led invasion of Iraq was an historic event that “for millions has become a declaration of independence from the US." That is why the whole scandal is of such importance. While opposition parties are exploiting the controversy for their own game of David and Goliath, “the former SPD-Green government is keen to prove the sincerity of its anti-war stance, because it was this that was meant to earn them a special place in German history.” The paper believes an investigation is necessary, and lists numerous ways in which the scandal touches on issues “fundamental to the country's constitution.” The commentator closes on the uplifting note that “whatever a parliamentary investigation might establish, or whatever details might be uncovered regarding war-cooperation with the US, one historic achievement of Schröder’s government remains untouched: The government resisted significant pressure and sent no German soldiers to war in Iraq.”