Commentary: Why is America mad at France again?

[Chewbacca]

I hear a terrible amount of French-bashing from the American right. It's very elistist, narrowminded and condesending IMO. I found a nice rebuttal thanks to Time magazine.

Also, I wonder if the French media has outlets as venomous as Fox News in the sense that Fox peppers their 'news' reporting with anti-french bias on a constant daily basis? Does any of the French media lace their 'news' with direct sneering at America. Are all things fair and equal as far as the media goes? I'm curious...

Anyway, here is the commentary:

Article

In Defense of France Why is America mad at France again? Because it's behaving just like the U.S. By MICHAEL ELLIOTT First, a confession. Last winter, during the interminable debates at the United Nations before the invasion of Iraq, I thought — and wrote — that if the U.S. and Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein, France would join them. That was a triumph of cynicism over judgment — a cynicism shared, though this is no excuse, by top officials in the U.S. State Department — and it was, obviously, dead wrong. France stayed out of the war. For a few months, this seemed like a catastrophic error on France's part, as Saddam was toppled and the Bush Administration puffed out its chest like a rooster that had just enjoyed half the henhouse. But now the U.S. needs help in Iraq, and France — in American eyes — is being awkward again. That has acted as a cue for a new burst of Francophobia in the American commentariat, with suggestions even that France is becoming an enemy of the U.S. This is nonsense on stilts. You can make any argument you like about whether France's policy on Iraq makes sense, but it is hard to claim that it has been either inconsistent or motivated by a desire to see the U.S. fail. In a long interview with Time in February, President Jacques Chirac laid out his policy with admirable clarity. France, he said, had no difference with the U.S. "over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." The point of distinction was simply that Chirac thought that war — which he believed would outrage Arab and Islamic public opinion and "create a large number of little bin Ladens" — should be a last resort. His prediction was better than mine. France's view on the current situation — that the Islamic world will more easily accept the new reality in Iraq if political authority is vested in the U.N., and then rapidly handed over to Iraqis themselves — is entirely in line with the country's long-held principles. That position may be mistaken, for conventional wisdom holds that nation building can't be hurried, but it is not self-evidently absurd or anti-American. So why the new round of Paris bashing? Three reasons. First, there is something about Dominique de Villepin, the oleaginous French Foreign Minister — with his dashing good looks, his volumes of poetry, his love of the word logic — that just gets under American skins. Second, there is continuing resentment in Washington that, six months ago, France did not just agree to disagree, but actively lobbied other members of the U.N. Security Council against the American position on Iraq. That may have been unwise. But there is no evidence to support the most serious charge that some Administration supporters leveled against Paris back then: that France tried to persuade Turkish parliamentarians to vote against allowing U.S. troops to transit Turkey on their way to Iraq. But it's reason No. 3 that's the most interesting. France, Americans think — and this is going to shock you — is pursuing an independent Iraq policy out of naked self-interest. Chirac, according to this view, is seeking to curry favor with the Islamic world, and using its disagreement with the U.S. to reestablish its political leadership in the European Union and become a rival to American power. Yet given the amount of oil in the Middle East, a Western government that does not want to be in the good books of regimes there is either energy-rich or brain-deficient. France is neither. And France's attempt to shape the European project in its own image is at least 50 years old. Given the continuing unwillingness of Europeans to pool their sovereignty into a true political union, France is no more likely to succeed in this effort now than it has been in the past. There's more. It's a bit much for the U.S. to criticize a nation for pursuing policies that enhance its own interests, since — you'll be shocked to hear this, too — that is precisely what Washington does. Indeed, in a famous Foreign Affairs article in 2000, Condoleezza Rice, who became George W. Bush's National Security Adviser, established the pursuit of national interests as the bedrock of American policy. You may think, as I do, that most American decisions in the last few years have benefited the world as a whole, but there is no point in imagining that those decisions were taken for any reason other than that they suited Washington. Rice put the position perfectly: "There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect." France, in other words, is behaving just like the U.S., which makes me think the real reason for the latest outburst of Francophobia is guilt — American guilt over the fact that the reconstruction of Iraq has been handled so poorly that the U.S. needs international assistance. It is American incompetence, not French venality, that has got Paris back in the big game. Admitting that is something that Americans find hard to do.

[ 09-26-2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[johnny]

America isn't mad at France, or vice versa, it's just a bunch of squabling politicians who are acting like a kid who just saw someone take his candy away. Once the crying stops, things will turn back to normal.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by johnny: America isn't mad at France, or vice versa, it's just a bunch of squabling politicians who are acting like a kid who just saw someone take his candy away. Once the crying stops, things will turn back to normal.

Hopefully cooler (and smarter) heads prevail but sometimes I don't think so.. and i hope that generations of citizens will not let their actions be ruled by spite.

[Skunk]

I think that the new antagonims have arisen because of the astute way that France has played its policy in the United Nations recently.

In the Security Council before the war, France already had at least 8 votes in its pocket - enough to sink the war resolution without a veto. But it declared an intention to cast a NO vote - giving the US/UK the excuse to withdraw their resolution on the grounds that France would 'scupper the diplomatic process'.

This time around however, France has been *much* more clever. This time around, France has tabled amendments to the US/UK resolution - amendments which have drawn wide support amongst the remaining members of the Security Council. Satisfied that the support is strong enough, Chirac has now stated that he will not vote NO (read: Veto) in the resolution if the amendments are not taken up - he will simply abstain. France can now sit back knowing that the US will never be able to get the neccessary 9/12 votes to carry the resolution (Since France, Russia and China are all likely to abstain, while Syria and Germany are guaranteed to vote no and abstain respectively. Other members of the SC seem to be similarly disposed to the German point of view.

A little while later, we see Chirac making a speech to the UN that draws wide applause while Bush's speech gets a few coughs and one or two half-hearted claps.

So the right wing are now rather embarrassed and faced with an extraordinary lack of world support combined with adverse opinion polls that show that the Bush is fasting losing the support of the electorate. Worse still, this time around it is impossible to directly blame France for putting a spanner in the UN works.

Result? Try to deflect blame on France anyway. If you yell hard enough, maybe Americans really will believe that France is responsible for the Iraq invasion and the ever decreasing supply of jobs and ever increasing poverty rate. Who knows, maybe some will believe it...It's worth a try anyway.

[Chewbacca]

Interesting perspective Skunk, thanks. I'm curious if a member of the American right can give as thoughtful a rebuttal.


On another note, I am personally disgusted that people actual blame the French for coalition casualties. I would love to hear a thoughtful perspective to support those claims, please. If anything the people who actual decided to go to war in the first place (Bush, Blair, ect.) are responsible for those deaths, not the dissenters.

[Faceman]

I'm sure if the French had sent troops only French servicemen would have died and the GIs would be much safer.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Faceman: I'm sure if the French had sent troops only French servicemen would have died and the GIs would be much safer.

Considering the French would have given the country back to the people and left already I think there would have been a lot less casualty.

[Nanobyte]

Originally posted by Skunk: the ever decreasing supply of jobs and ever increasing poverty rate.

What was it that Bush was lobbying for a couple months ago? A tax cut or placing a couple million into the economy? What ever happened to that?

Before long, we might as well call it the 2nd Great Depression.. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[Sir Kenyth]

We're not really mad at France. At least I'm not. It's their god given right to not support something they don't feel comfortable with. At the same time, when you find a freind of yours actually doesn't have your back, they'll never be the same kind of freind again. Who's right or wrong is kind of irrelavent in this matter. It's more of a human nature thing. Freinds (Allies) have your back in a fight, or they're no longer allies, just freindly aquaintences. You won't ever count on them again for anything.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Faceman: I'm sure if the French had sent troops only French servicemen would have died and the GIs would be much safer.

Considering the French would have given the country back to the people and left already I think there would have been a lot less casualty. [/QUOTE]Come on now Luv! You can't leave the place in utter chaos! That's how military leaders get to be dictators again! We need to push the locals into forming a government that's accepted by the people. They need to get some popular and repected leaders into office. I'm sure it's scary and everything for them, but it has to be done before we can leave. With the procrastination, you'd think they almost want us to colonize them sometimes.