September 18, 2003

ohh la la land

From Friedman's column on French perfidy:

What is so amazing to me about the French campaign - "Operation America Must Fail" - is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups - from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris - will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.

If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.

But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government - after being so content with Saddam's one-man rule - is so patently cynical...

But what's most sad is that France is right - America will not be as effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French help. Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs' future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.


And, via the Belgravia Dispatch, this hilarious excerpt from Le Figaro:
Sample graf: "...le probleme pour Jacques Chirac, aujourd'hui, est de transformer sa popularite dans le monde en influence sur le cours de l'Histoire. Quelle capacite a- t-il d'imprimer sa marque sur le destin de l'Irak ?....Il a moralement gagnÈ la guerre. Reste, concretement, ne pas perdre la paix."

Translation: "The problem for Jacques Chirac, today, is to transform his popularity in the world into influencing the course of History. What capacity does he have to make his mark on the destiny of Iraq?...He morally won the war. What's left...is to not lose the peace."

Posted by Dr. Frank at September 18, 2003 05:21 PM | TrackBack
Comments

France, you'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...and for the rest of your life. But what about us? We'll always have moral indignation...

I think the Crooked Timber dude is right. In cost/benefit terms, it's far from obvious that France's net benefit is in the kind of involvement Friedman would want...and this counterfactual about American defeat and Muslims running amok through the French streets sounds pretty fanciful and pretty toothless as an argument for French involvement. To me anyway...

Posted by: spacetoast at September 19, 2003 09:03 AM

France, for what it is worth, is entitled to it's own opinion, and is only interested in taking actions which benefit France. If Chirac's government finds no reason to participate in the 'Rebuilding' (or 'Occupation', depending on how you look at it), there is a reason why going beyond simply being French or being content with a dictator. Someone is not making it worth their while to intervene.

There are economic and cultural drivers affecting every decision a world leader makes, and these have a lasting affect in the world. These drivers supercede any talk of democratic ideals no matter how much we want things to be otherwise. For instance, when the U.S delivers an economic aid package to a South American country, the money given must be spent only with U.S. companies (and this is not just because we provide the best products and services ever in the history of civilization). Whatever goes out comes back in, and the economy is stronger for it.

France would be participating in Iraq if there was a payoff for France. Period. Economics is the grease of all historical events, as Glasnost should have taught us.

I am not going to sit around and quote all those articles about multi-billion dollar contracts being awarded to Haliburton and other U.S. corporations, because the principle of leverage is easily observable in just about every other area of life. When I do a bad job at work, someone talks to my boss to correct the problem. When someone sells me something rotten, I never buy from them again and tell everyone I know not to do so either. When a company raises the cost of a product they sell, people go with a competitor.

If people were seriously interested in having France participate in a cleanup effort, they would be approaching French companies to do the cleanup, and they would be pressuring the government into action in order to expand the amount of business coming to them.

This is not something anyone gets to vote on, this is not something talked about in the mainstream media. This is just a practicality, and one that is worth considering. Where does all the money spent on restoring services and cultivating natural resources in Iraq go? Who makes the decisions regarding the award of contracts in this great effort, and what do they have to gain by seeing money go one way or another?

This argument may seen too simple, hypocritical, or unpatriotic. Perhaps someone will accuse me of being a Saddam lover. But the articles quoted are extremely biased towards a view that France's actions are simply trite and anti-American, which is a just a way of looking at things that really doesn't do much for anyone. The real politic, the action which will cause something to happen, is an economic one.

This strategy of trying to bully France in the court of public opinion, however, is probably counterproductive. It blows my mind how people can villify a nation the way France has been and then expect acquiesance and cooperation in international affairs. What is more likely to happen, and the French are famous for this, is a backlash by the cultural elite that will mobilize significant constituencies against any action at all. Don't forget detente is a French term.

Perhaps the real intentions of those publishing these sorts of articles is to create such a backlash, and perhaps France's inaction serves another purpose for those in power. Who really knows?

BTW, loved 'Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy'.

Posted by: mike at September 28, 2003 03:40 AM

come on! USA did the mess in Iraq, and now the Europeans (me... I live in old Europe...) have to pay money and help just because Bush cant cope with it? No way! we wanted peace, USA wanted war, now it's USA' s businnes!

Posted by: Riccardo A'd Batòl at September 30, 2003 07:12 PM

fuck america you suck

Posted by: tom adriansens at March 28, 2004 07:47 PM


Being an American who has been living and working in Europe for the past eight years, I have always found historically the French always take the opposite side in any matter involving American concepts, ideas or proposals.

If I was to look at a blue sky and remark, "Wow, what a beautiful blue sky." A French man would comment, “No, there are white clouds in the sky." Just to point out something different.

The Napoleon Syndrome is alive and well. A little man with some power projects as if he is the leader of the world, (really the want to be's). I deal with this daily and it's always with the French. They never see the trees in the forest? They will find a shocking reality at the direction of this present government, but I’m afraid it will be too late. I hope this time America doesn’t shred young men’s blood coming to their aid espeically considering they never pay their debts owed and only wish to take from others.

Posted by: George de la Torre at October 12, 2004 09:58 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?