My fellow Canuck Collin May is writing again, and doing an excellent job. His "Up In Arms" article looks at France's recent moves re: selling arms to China, the consistent historical philosophy that underpins its foreign policy, and the implications for American foreign policy. Thoughtful, sane, with depth. Good job!
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
Great article. He made some very good points. Much he says about France is true. But, this doesn't make France bad just different.
Chirac is a smart old bird. He is indeed working to undermine American dominance in the world. Someone certainly needs to.
Sarkozy will probably unseat him next election and he's more in favor of cozying up to capitalism. Bah!
Dianne,
When it means backing the likes of Saddam, Muagabe, et. al., and supporting these butchers in order to [a] spite the Anglos rather than as any kind of unpleasant compromise that addresses actual security threats and [b] profit by it financially... that isn't just "different." It's deeply immoral. What you do about it is another thing, as Collin points out, but its immorality doesn't change.
As for "cozying up to capitalism"... the wall fell. Capitalism won. Maybe you hadn't heard?
Or, given Sarkozy's Atlanticist views, were you referring to "capitalism" as a substitute for the word "America" - a potentially revealing use of language, if so.
France’s uniqueness lies rather in its willingness to ally itself with the least savory of nations and forces in order to achieve dominance.
Sorry, but this is hyperbole. France has no more particular inclination to do this than any other nation.
It was, after all, a huge scandal to Christian Europe when France befriended the Muslim Ottoman Turks in order to undermine the advance of the Catholic Hapsburgs.
The implication here is that the Catholic Haspburgs were somehow more "just" than the Turks, which is just a bunch of ahistorical non-sense. Indeed, let's be blunt about this, many Protestants at the time, including Luther, welcomed the Turks because they saw them as God's just punishment on Europe. So it wasn't as scandalous as the author states. Indeed, given his reasoning, I suppose that makes Lutherans traditionally supportive of unsavory regimes. hah
Similarly, during the Cold War and continuing today, we are often shocked by French affiliations with everyone from Saddam to Mugabe, from Arafat to Castro, all in the name of subtle diplomacy.
I am also shocked by my own nation's support of unsavory regimes. France is not the only player of such politics and pretending like that is the case or that France is somehow unique simply undermines the author's credibility.
Rather, the US will have to consider it more in the manner of the British, who understood that France was a fellow democracy, but one that was constantly acting as if it wanted to be the only democracy – not a particularly democratic intention.
Let us note here that most of the Anglo-French rivalry occurred when France was a monarchy, and virtually ended with the fall of Napoleon. Indeed, for much of the 19th and 20th century France's main rival was not the English speaking world, but the Germans; and post-Fashoda crisis, Britain's main rival was Germany as well. When you start painting with such broad and reductionist strokes you end up self-fisking your argument.
To be blunt, May's article, besides its lack of historical accuracy, is far too reductionist about France and French diplomatic history, which has been incredibly varied over the years and often slavishly pro-American.
"When it means backing the likes
of Saddam, Muagabe, et. al., and
supporting these butchers..."
The US has a fine history of
supporting tyrannicalregimes
when it suits their purpose.
As Mr. Gunnels said..
"France is not the only player
of such politics and pretending
like that is the case or that
France is somehow unique simply
undermines the author's credibility."
No Joe, actually I wasn't referring
to "capitalism" as a substitute for
the word "America.
I'm not sure about the longer-range historical analogies Collin May makes, but I think he is more or less spot on re. the nature and motivations of French policy today.
Gary Gunnels notes "...my own nation's support of unsavory regimes. France is not the only player of such politics...".
True, to some extent, but an important difference is that this rarely provokes serious domestic opposition.
The majority of the French public continue to view such matters as the affair of the state, which in turn keeps up the good old traditions of raison d'etat.
Whereas in the US, Kissengerism is difficult for the US to sustain, once people begin to pay attention. And there are periodic episodes of moral ethusiasm in American diplomacy that are largely seen as rather absurd in France: Wilson and the League, Kellog-Briand, FDR (a bit)and the UN, Carter and human rights, anti-communism, neo-conservatism.
This is not a matter of opposite poles, but a continuum. Many Americans have favoured a more 'realist' approach, the French still pay at least lip-service to Republican/Revolutionary ideals and the "mission civilatrice francophonie".
(The British, of course, are convinced that Americans are naive, the French are cynics, Germans windbags, but we Brits are just right. :)
The most important message in this article is that, at present, France sees the creation of countervailing power in relation to the US as a significant national interest.
This, incidentally, is why I don't think 'oil-for-food', oil condcessions, arms deals etc. were as significant as motivators as some people think. It may have swayed some, but if that had been critical France could have been bought off by finacial deals. And you could have bet they'd have asked, and that the UK FO would have backed it. A deal would have been done, I suspect.
(As for fear of French Muslim reaction, I don't believe that for a moment).
What was critical in shifting French attitudes, from the start of the UNSC circus, where the accounts of Secretaries Powell and Straw show France signalling willingness to co-operate, and the end, where their opposition became absolute?
Chirac's arrogance? De Villepin's insouciant incompetence? Both factors, maybe.
Annoyance at being slighted by Bush and Rummy. Please. The Quai d'Orsay? These are diplomatic pro's, not a buch of oversensitive schoolkids.
IMHO the critical factor was France saw that German politics could be manipulated on this issue, to create the Washington/Berlin split they have desired for decades, and made a high speed maneouvre to exploit the opportunity.
As for WHY France wants alternative centres to the US, I nominate two:
1) The French have never liked playing second fiddle to anyone.
2) They belive that history shows the US (and UK) cannot be trusted as allies to support French vital national interests.
In my judgement they're making a mistake, but I think this is why they're making it.