Liberté, Egalité, Absurdité

[Rudey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/op...pular_5January 3, 2005

The New York Times

Liberté, Egalité, Absurdité
By JOHN J. MILLER

Washington

LA plus ça change. In 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent marines to the Dominican Republic to protect American citizens during a violent civil war, President Charles de Gaulle of France condemned the intervention. In a secret message to Washington, however, he asked for help defending the French Embassy. Johnson did so, but never heard a word of thanks, in public or private. Instead, de Gaulle went on to demand that the United States withdraw from Vietnam and, eventually, to pull his own forces out of NATO.

George W. Bush must know exactly how Johnson felt. Shortly after Mr. Bush's re-election, the current French president, Jacques Chirac, called the post-Saddam Hussein world "more dangerous," announced that the United States doesn't "return favors" to Europe and even accused Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of "a lack of culture." He managed to stuff all these comments into a single interview, which happened to coincide with Mr. Bush's firm support for a French military crackdown in the Ivory Coast, where antigovernment insurgents have endangered French citizens, the last remnant of Paris's colonial regime there.

Yet it's a mistake to assume that Mr. Chirac's rhetoric was just a clumsy expression of pent-up frustration with American voters. French foreign policy in the 1960's was not driven by a leader's personal antipathy for a brash Texan in the White House, and neither is today's. Regime change in the United States might have led John Kerry to slap Mr. Chirac on the back and say, "Lafayette, we are here!" - but nothing would have altered the underlying fact that France has for decades viewed the United States as a unique threat.

The root of the problem is Gaullism itself. More than just a form of nationalism, Gaullism insists that France must exert an outsized influence on the course of human events. During the cold war, de Gaulle spoke of his country leading Europe as "one of three world powers and, if need be one day, the arbiter between the two camps, the Soviet and the Anglo-Saxon." Hence de Gaulle developed a nuclear arsenal, threatened to destabilize the dollar and criticized American military actions.

Mr. Chirac and his neo-Gaullists recognize that France can no longer serve as a fulcrum between East and West, but they believe their country still has a vital role to play in containing the world's "hyperpower," in their pejorative labeling of the United States. On the cultural front, this agenda can manifest itself in bizarre rear guard actions. Most ridiculously, a French court has declared that the film "Un Long Dimanche de Fiançailles" ("A Very Long Engagement") is not eligible to compete in French film festivals, despite having being filmed in France, in the French language, with hundreds of French actors and technicians. Its offense: receiving financial backing from Warner Brothers.

In world politics, the French are much more aggressive. Before the invasion of Iraq, Paris didn't just express reservations - it tried to sabotage American goals in every feasible venue, from the chambers of the Security Council to the committee rooms of NATO. Since then, it has issued a raft of demands, including the hasty transfer of sovereignty to an ad hoc Iraqi government, as well as a date certain by which the United States will remove its troops, no matter the circumstances.

Mr. Chirac's diplomats even spent October lobbying unsuccessfully for Iraqi insurgent groups - the ones now killing American troops and Iraqi civilians - to be represented at the international summit in Egypt in November. It is difficult to see how French interests are furthered in any way by this behavior, unless France is understood to believe that its own aims are advanced whenever American ones are thwarted.

Dean Acheson once was asked to recommend a course of action with respect to de Gaulle. He advised an "empty chair" policy - that is, French-American relations would improve only after de Gaulle had left the scene. This wait-and-see approach may have made sense at the time, but not today. While Mr. Chirac is 72, he might seek an unprecedented third term in 2007. Even if he doesn't, his successor could be Dominique de Villepin, the former foreign minister who under heavy questioning found himself unable to say he hoped for an American military victory in Iraq. Whatever happens, neo-Gaullism will continue to inform French attitudes.

Condoleezza Rice, now Mr. Bush's nominee for secretary of state, was quoted in 2003 as telling colleagues that the United States should "punish France." This is a tempting tactic, for it holds out the promise of vengeful satisfaction. It was also the motive behind the recent campaigns to boycott French products. Unbeknownst to most of the participants, however, the consumer strategy was tried without much success in the 1960's. In truth, Paris isn't worth a boycott.

Thinking otherwise only buys into the Gaullist claim that France should occupy a place of reverence in the community of nations. But why should its views matter any more than, say, Italy, whose population and economy are nearly the same size? The United States may choose to work with France on a few areas of mutual diplomatic interest - Haiti and perhaps Iran - but in general, the marginal amounts of aid and peacekeeping help Paris can offer hardly merit concessions on our part. And if France threatens to undermine American interests with its Security Council veto, we should call its bluff, pointing out that such behavior merely weakens the institution that is the prime source of France's undeserved prestige. (Despite all the bluster, France has not used its veto power unilaterally since 1976.)

Moreover, making an example of the French is precisely the wrong approach because it elevates France in the eyes of the world's anti-Americans, who will always be with us. The one thing France and the neo-Gaullists can't possibly abide is being ignored. Perhaps that's punishment enough.


John J. Miller is a writer for National Review and co-author of "Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France."

-Rudey

[KillarneyRose]

I'm a big fan of vengeful satisfaction, but hey, that's just me.

[AlphaSigOU]

Nuke those ungrateful bastages... but let's take their wine and champagne first!

[RACooper]

I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....

Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers

Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?

Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper
I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....

Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers

Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?

Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...

stop being an apologist, France's Gaullist goals are overwrought, indicative of the fact that only France sees itself as still relevant or powerful (except for giving away nuclear technology ... )

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by RACooper
I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....

Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers

Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?

Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...

Wow. Calling a critique about Gaullism "sour grapes" is very poignant, and very ironic. Their withdrawl from NATO in 1966 is a perfect example. Their paranoia to other cultures influencing French culture, without blinking an eye over French colonialism is just par for the course with France. French tolerance of genocidal regimes (a nice mention in Hotel Rwanda) never seems to end, and yet they have the balls to present themselves as a moral alternative to anything?

De Gaulle and Chirac both represent the unending bitterness of French irrelevance and duplicity.

[Rudey]

Again you attack me. You just don't stop. Fine.

This is a piece from the New York Times. The Times is one of the most reputable daily papers out there and often considered the best. You say I have anti-French views because I posted it?? Perhaps it's because I am intelligent, lived in France, speak French, eat French foods, have family in France with property, and also INVEST in French companies. Cut me a break. And you attack the author why? Because he wrote in the New York Times? Because he wrote for the National Review? Because he co-wrote a book detailing the friction between the US and France?? If you're going to attack me or the author, at least have some ground and merit. As it stands right now your reputation is one of violence, one of lies, one of absurdity, and oh yeah your link to France is that your brother went there for a little while.

-Rudey

Originally posted by RACooper
I'm sorry but the writer sounds a bit like "sour grapes"....

Firstly making the assumption that France's - or more specifically Gaulish - foreign relations are predicated solely on "thwarting" the US is more than a bit misguided and niave... I mean come on that'd be like saying that Canada bases it's solely on the UN; or the US solely on the War on Terror. Foreign policy is extremely complex, and in many cases on a greater long-term curve than many journalists have careers

Secondly you know the article is going to have a wee bit'o bias when you look at it - a) the author is the co-author of what book? b) he's a writer for what? c) the poster of the article, has he ever expressed anything but anti-French views?

Now that being said if you wade through some of the rhetoric you start to see some meaty bits... such as the desire for a greater place on the world stage (both a Gaulish and French principle). The author's arguement about an American centred aproach (whether for good or bad) taken by the French only covers a small part of Frnech political and foreign attitudes - he does make the conection to the French desire for a return to "Great Power" status; but he views it only in the light of how this has directly or indirectly affected the US. In other words he assumes that the French did what they did for the assumed effect it would have on the US, not on the effect it would have in advancing French or Gaulish goals...

[amycat412]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss

De Gaulle and Chirac both represent the unending bitterness of French irrelevance and duplicity.

That may be so... but I caution against condemning the entire country and its citizens for the actions/attitudes of their government. That is closed minded and would be like someone condemning the US (as they do) for the actions of our government...

In my case, more often than not lately, I disagree with the position and actions of our government, yet to apply the logic of that article to me and other democrats, we'd be evil war mongerig focused on the war on terror people too...

Is simplified view, but true nonetheless. I've been to France recently, not all their citizens agree with the Gaullist approach.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by amycat412
That may be so... but I caution against condemning the entire country and its citizens for the actions/attitudes of their government. That is closed minded and would be like someone condemning the US (as they do) for the actions of our government...

In my case, more often than not lately, I disagree with the position and actions of our government, yet to apply the logic of that article to me and other democrats, we'd be evil war mongerig focused on the war on terror people too...

Is simplified view, but true nonetheless. I've been to France recently, not all their citizens agree with the Gaullist approach.

Nobody said anything against an entire country and every single citizen. Perhaps you misread?

-Rudey

[amycat412]

Originally posted by Rudey
Nobody said anything against an entire country and every single citizen. Perhaps you misread?

-Rudey

Perhaps I did. Perhaps I am a little sensitive to the amount of anti-French sentiment, being French and loving France.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by amycat412
Perhaps I did. Perhaps I am a little sensitive to the amount of anti-French sentiment, being French and loving France.

Perhaps. Perhaps history is history and not just "anti-French" sentiment either.

-Rudey

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Rudey
Nobody said anything against an entire country and every single citizen. Perhaps you misread?

-Rudey

No they didn't misread, reread the article.

[amycat412]

Originally posted by Rudey
Perhaps. Perhaps history is history and not just "anti-French" sentiment either.

-Rudey

Depends on your viewpoint, I guess. I personally could care less about France's politics, I still love the country, its culture, food, wine... and that's where I come from on it. C'est la vie!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
No they didn't misread, reread the article.

Sonny, I read it and posted it.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by amycat412
Depends on your viewpoint, I guess. I personally could care less about France's politics, I still love the country, its culture, food, wine... and that's where I come from on it. C'est la vie!

I thought you were from Vegas?

-Rudey