I’ve got some thoughts about my almost-second country, France.
Our frustration with France comes from our (not unreasonable) assumption that a) since we keep bailing them out of military difficulties; b) we rebuilt their economy twice; and c) they lived under our military protection for twenty years, they would act as allies and assume that our interests were parallel, with small differences involving metric v. English measurement and whether we would sell Michelin or UniRoyal tires to various third-word accounts.
They dont feel that way.
…
Yes.
They’re actually our oldest ally. Except they don’t act like it anymore. They instead seem to start with a basic assumption: whatever we’re doing is bad.
Or do they? Maybe they genuinely feel this war will be a disaster for the United States as well as the rest of the world. Maybe they feel guilty for handing us Vietnam.
I’ve gotten the impression over the last several years, particularly with Jacques Chirac (sp?) that the driving force for France has been a desire to become relevant again.
Their vociferous (and often ridiculous) defense of their language, for example, is a reaction to the fact they aren’t as important as they used to be on the world stage, and their very identity has been marginalized.
I would go so far to say that their nuclear testing in the Pacific some years ago is just an intense desire to be able to play in hte sandbox with the big boys. It’s a “Hey, guys, see, we have nukes, too! See?” They’re like the bastard step child that no one really wants to talk about.
Now, however, they’re in an interesting position of power. On one side, Germany has pretty much given up any wiggle room they had by the way they treated the resolution on Iraq from the beginning. German politicians can’t allow themselves to change their vote. Quite a few recent German political careers have been built on Anti-Americanism.
On the other hand are The U.S. and Britain, who can’t back down. Troops are committed, money has been spent, bets have been laid.
Of course, there’s China (Won’t shift because… well, because they’re China. The Cold War ain’t over kids) and Russia (too wrapped up in their own shit, but not too keen on American Hegemony in general).
France strikes me as trying to grab hold of as many reins as they can to try to steer the horse. I don’t get the sense that they care one way or another, frankly. But if they can place themselves in a position where people need to talk to them to get things done, they’ll be ecstatic.
France may budge, but only on France’s terms. They’ve finally found a bargaining chip that gives them some power. I’m betting they’re hoping to broker this into something more down the line. Gateway to The Middle East, or some such.
Anyway, that’s my take on things.
Handing us Vietnam?? We jumped in after they (wisely) got out after getting their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Sometimes the French know what they’re doing.
And everyone keeps talking about how we bailed them out of two wars. We could go back to the American Revolution and how the Americans would have had a tough time winning without French help. How come that’s never mentioned. Because it’s irrelevant. So is our help to them in World War II.
You reap what you sow. This Administration has blown off its Allies over and over again (trade agreements-GATT, Kyoto, etc.). They are returning the favor.
The French aren’t blameless. They haven’t handled this well either and are like spoiled children who didn’t get invited to the party. But how many other Administrations would have handled this situation this poorly???
I still don’t think everything is about us. The French have a serious Islamic terrorism problem in Algeria, and anything that helps Al Qaeda recruit hurts them. Even if their main concern is terrorism against them rather than us, I think they are speaking in good faith when they say invading Iraq without a plan to leave a government in place that doesn’t involve either continuous occupation or civil war is linke printing Al Qaeda recruiting posters.
Limited French assistance to the rebelious British colony in North America in the 18th century was all about French antipathy to England, not a function of any selfless desire to liberate Americans. France and England were competing around the globe, and the French monarchy was in favor of anything that would occupy and bleed the English. So the King of France provided enough help to make a difference, and I am grateful for this help as an American, regardless of the motivation. However, equating this period with the US-led rescues of France from the Germans in the 20th century is not a fair analogy. There are huge differences, not just apples & oranges, but apples & light bulbs. Keep it straight….
the french are concerned to maintain or re-establish their prsence in the world. that is what they view the EU as – a vehicle for their international pretensions. Their behaviour in their former colonies has generally been despicable, and little less than empire building. America is not blameless, but Chirac doesn’t have a leg to stand on in the ethics stakes.
People forget about Chirac that he was PM when France was supplying nuclear technology to Iraq, and he was closely involved in it.
There are honourable and sound reasons for opposing war on Iraq, just as there are sound and honourable reasons for supporting it – but chirac’s apporach has no basis in honour or ethics.