Examines issues of the day against a triumvirate of core principles: liberty, responsibility and justice.
comments: americanbeacon@hotmail.com
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is where you stick random tidbits of information about yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Au revoir.
It is time for the American government to dispense with traditional diplomatic niceties and acknowledge that France, one of our so-called �friends and allies,� is in fact neither a friend nor an ally. While it is to be expected that such avowed enemies as Iraq and North Korea will behave in a manner that causes us much angst, France�s actions are more contemptible because it is nominally part of the Atlantic alliance. American foreign policy sorely lacks a reflection of this fact, and this deficiency should be remedied sooner rather than later.
France�s raison d�etre is directly antithetical to American interests, because the simple fact is that France�s raison d�etre is to thwart and obstruct the United States at every opportunity. When discussion of Iraq turns to containment, the irony is that it is the containment of the United States, not of Iraq, that France seeks. Even when Warsaw Pact armor stood poised to overrun Western Europe, France always was a thorn in the side of the Western alliance so its behavior today should be no surprise.
Any objective assessment of French conduct with regard to Iraq will reveal that the objective has not been freedom for Iraqis, or the disarmament or even containment of Saddam Hussein. All the obnoxious rhetoric coming from the Elysee Palace that these are worthy goals, but only to be accomplished through peaceful means, are patently untrue. Jacques Chirac and his functionaries are simply and blatantly lying, but then again, duplicity and cowardice are hallmarks of French diplomacy.
If Paris was truly interested in the containment of Iraq, then why did it spend the entire decade of the 1990�s doing Saddam�s bidding at the United Nations (which itself is nothing more than an American straightjacket and a forum for the legitimization of terrorist states) and weakening sanctions and other tools of containment? If Paris was genuinely concerned about Saddam�s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, then why did it NOT vote for the 1999 resolution that created the inspection regime that Chirac now holds so dear? If Paris was actually troubled by Saddam�s history of aggression, then why does it still, to this day, actively assist him in the rearmament and revitalization of his military?
And in case anybody thinks this treachery is limited to Iraq, it is not. If Paris was so preoccupied with eliminating terrorism, then why does it continue to coddle and support Syria, which is one of the worst terrorist-sponsoring states on the planet. An even greater outrage, which would be literally unbelievable if it was not perpetrated by France, was the invitation of Hizballah head Hassan Nasrallah to the Francophone summit last year. After Al Qaeda, Hizballah is the world�s most dangerous terrorist group. Chirac�s embrace of Robert Mugabe is just another example of France�s total indifference to human rights, which, in the post Cold War world, can be a more prominent element of foreign policy as a result of the disappearance of Soviet expansionism.
Again, in case anybody thinks this duplicity is limited to matters of terrorism, it is not. If Paris was truly enamored of multilateralism, then why does it do what it wants in Ivory Coast without UN backing? Incidentally, the inability of the French military to handle matters in this tiny West African nation is yet another example of the impotence that, in conjunction with a craven deviousness, leads France to opt for appeasement over principle every time. And French calls for aid to developing countries might be taken more seriously if it did not do everything in its power to stifle those countries� agricultural sectors, which would be the prime source of income-generating exports.
The inconsistencies that seem apparent by these questions are not really inconsistencies at all. Those who seek to understand French motivations are looking in the wrong place if they focus on France�s positions as they relate to Iraq. The truth is becomes clear once one looks at France�s positions as they relate to America. In every instance, France has stood for frustration of American efforts to disarm and contain the Iraqi regime. This is the consistency that defines French foreign policy and it is time that this reality is both acknowledged by the American diplomatic community and reflected in American relations with France.
The first step should be to understand how France intends to implement its policy, and this is easy to discern. Because France is a second-rate country with little economic power and even less military power, it must amplify its influence by relying on the multilateral institutions that it so worships. As a result, America should act to undermine and weaken those institutions, namely the UN and the EU. The former will be rendered even more irrelevant than it already is simply by its failure to back up its worthless words with action, and the American overthrow of Saddam will go a long way towards achieving this objective.
The more complex question is how to realign America�s foreign policy with regard to Europe in such a way as to preserve important trans-Atlantic relationships and strengthen our ties to the many European countries that do not toe the French line. While much is being made about a rift in European-American relations, it is more accurately described as a rift between France, and its German lapdog, and the rest of Europe. The Cold War dynamic that held the West together relatively cohesively has evaporated and, in response, the West now has divisions that would be well worth exploiting. This will partly result from contradictions inherent in the EU structure. The notion of having a single monetary policy alongside a multitude of fiscal policies, which are driven by the very different natures and needs of the states that comprise the Euro, is difficult to reconcile. This is likely to be a cause of strife and division within Europe.
Furthermore, there is already a nascent backlash against Franco-German attempts to dominate the voice of Europe. As the EU attempts to transform itself from a trading bloc, which is a logical construct, into a political monolith, other member nations are beginning to cry foul. French Foreign Minister Dominque De Villepin does not hide his vision of restoring France to its Napoleonic greatness (the hypocrisy of this dream, as well as the absurdity of this hallucination, can be fodder for another column) and President Jacques Chirac�s well publicized scolding of new entrants to the EU unmasked his pretension to continental hegemony. In addition, Chirac�s and Schroeder�s plan for an EU presidency was summarily shot down by all other nations as a transparent attempt by the Paris-Berlin axis to muzzle dissent.
By exacerbating these divisions, the United States can weaken France, which by definition is good for the United States. Expanding NATO with pro-American Eastern European nations, as we have done, is a good step. Additionally, using bilateral agreements to support and encourage those nations, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aptly called �new� Europe, will embolden them to assert themselves and act as a counterweight to French initiatives. Importantly, a post-war discovery of Saddam�s unconventional weapons programs, which is a virtual certainty, and revelations of French military assistance to Saddam in violation of sanctions, which is a likelihood, will discredit it within Europe and allow for Britain, Italy and Spain to supplant French influence within the EU. Finally, France�s own self-inflicted problems stemming from its wildly profligate version of socialism will contribute to the steady degradation of its economic capability and influence.
Perhaps a day will come when France will produce its own Thatcher or Reagan, but no such day is on the horizon. Until then, it is important for American foreign policy to admit that which is clear. Our war on terror must play by new rules as a result of the proliferation of new destructive technologies and the expansion of means by which to deliver them. Appropriately, President Bush has directed this war not only at terrorist groups themselves, but at the states that finance, sponsor and equip them. Similarly, we must realign our relations with states, France being the cardinal example, that work to protect and give comfort to those rogue nations.
3/12/2003 01:51:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
