Why the French Act Isn't Funny Anymore

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Their resistance to helping in Afghanistan and Iraq is now downright dangerous.


By Carles Krauthammer
TIME Magazine
Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2004

It is easy to make fun of the French and their pompous pretense to the grandeur they shed a half-century ago when their loss of honor under Vichy, and then their loss of empire, relegated them to the rank of second-class power. But the fun is over. Before Sept. 11, France's Gaullist anti-Americanism as a form of ostentatious self-aggrandizement was an irritant. With a war on — three, in fact: Afghanistan, Iraq and the larger war on terrorism — France's willful obstructionism becomes dangerous and deadly.

That obstructionism was on amazing display at the recent NATO summit in Istanbul. The supremely courageous President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, flies there to beg for our troops to protect his country in the run-up to September elections. Two female election workers had already been murdered and some 16 men had been shot to death by insurgents for registering to vote.

NATO responds with an offer of a small number of troops to be sent around September. Karzai pleads for a more immediate deployment. Britain and the U.S. request deployment of NATO's new rapid-reaction force created precisely for such contingencies. France's President Jacques Chirac vetoes it, saying the force should not be used "in any old way."

Any old way? As if the NATO troops were off to visit the Kabul Disneyland. Afghanistan is the good war, remember. The war of undeniable necessity. The war everyone supported. It is hard to imagine a more important mission for NATO, or for the civilized world for that matter, than assuring free elections in Afghanistan, crucible for the worst terrorist attack in history. Yet with a flick of a hand, Chirac dismisses Karzai — and, of course, the U.S.

On Iraq, Chirac was similarly destructive of any realistic NATO help in democratic nation building. He spearheaded the vetoing of any NATO troops going to Iraq. The most that President Bush could get was an agreement to train Iraqi troops, but Chirac insisted the training be undertaken not by NATO as an organization (only by NATO countries individually) and not in Iraq itself. He suggested Rome. Nice for sightseeing, but hardly the most efficient and cost-effective way to train the Iraqi police and army.

Chirac knows America's stake in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so great, and so obvious, that even in the midst of a bitterly fought election campaign, the opposition presidential candidate embraces the current Administration's objective of democratic reconstruction in both countries. Why then is Chirac making things as difficult as he can for the U.S.?

It is not just pique. It is not just antipathy to George Bush. And it is not just France's traditional and reflexive policy of trying to rein in, cut down and domesticate the world's greatest superpower so that ultimately secondary powers like France could emerge as leaders of a multipolar world.

There is something far deeper going on here. Beyond the anti-Americanism is an attempt to court the Muslim and Arab world. For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a "third way" between America and its enemies. Chirac's ultimate vision is a France that is mediator and bridge between America and Islam. During the cold war, Charles de Gaulle invented this idea of a third force, withdrawing France from the NATO military structure and courting Moscow as a counterweight to Washington. Chirac, declaring in Istanbul that "we are not servants" of America, has transposed this Gaullist policy to the struggle with radical Islam.

Explosive population growth in the Arab world coupled with Europe's unprecedented baby bust presages a radical change in the balance of power in the Mediterranean world. Chirac perhaps sees a coming Muslim future or, at least, a coming Muslim resurgence. And he does not want to be on the wrong side of that history. The result is a classic policy of appeasement: stand up to the American presumption of dictating democratic futures to Afghanistan and Iraq; ingratiate yourself with the Arab world. Thus, for example, precisely at a time when the U.S. and many Western countries are shunning Yasser Arafat for supporting terrorism and obstructing peace, Chirac sends his Foreign Minister to the ruins of Arafat's compound to shake Arafat's hand for world cameras.

This is pure pandering but with an agenda. Chirac wants not only to make France the champion of the oppressed in general against the great American hegemon but also to make it in particular the champion of Arab aspirations against American imperialism. Even the left-leaning French newspaper Le Monde criticized Chirac for acting the "killjoy" in Istanbul. But Chirac's behavior was no mere outburst. It is a strategy for a French future. Chirac is charting a course — a collision course with America. Istanbul was just one accident scene. There are many more to come.

Does someone want to explain Chirac's reasoning here so that it makes sense? It sounds rather like gibberish to me.

"Yesterday there was much talk across the blogosphere about Chirac and Bush's public exchange of words regarding Turkey and the EU. But Chirac did something far more damaging than that. He has blocked the deployment of NATO troops to safeguard the elections in Afghanistan. (Rueters cite):

France has blocked a U.S. bid to deploy NATO's new strike force to safeguard Afghanistan's elections, stoking tension between the two allies that fell out over the Iraq war, diplomats said Tuesday.

"France, and to a lesser extent others such as Spain, are suspicious about using the NATO Response Force (NRF)," said one envoy at the alliance summit in Istanbul.

"It says the force is not ready for this kind of environment and should not be used simply as a sticking plaster for troop shortages on routine operations."

France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.

...

Chirac told a news conference that the NRF -- set up last year with a heavy French contingent but not due to become fully operational until October 2006 -- should only be used when there is a serious security crisis, not for Afghan-style missions.

"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.

...

Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces. This means they will not be in place to help with voter registration, which has been dogged by Taliban militia attacks.

...

France's excuse is

One European official said the U.S.-French tussle was more about procedure. Paris is concerned that sending the NRF to Afghanistan could set a precedent for using it as a "toolbox" whenever NATO has problems pooling forces for an operation.

"France worries ... (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan," the official said.



This article highlights the fact that there really aren't very many non-US NATO troops available. A fact which ought to be remembered when engaging in debates about how important a European contribution to the War on Terrorism could be. But more importantly it highlights how little of a contribution Europe (and especially France) is willing to make when contributing involves more than diplomatic rhetoric.

The mission was to deploy troops in Afghanistan to safeguard elections. According to European rhetoric, Afghanistan is one of the most important foreign fronts in the War on Terrorism. To dismiss the safeguarding of Afghanistan's elections as "any old matter" is ridiculous. If the War on Terrorism is going to be won at all it will include changing the way that governments in the region interact with their citizens. This is not a mere procedural objection to the way the US raised the issue. This when coupled with "overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections" is a challenge to the idea of many possible roles for NATO in Afghanistan.

Note that this will prevent troops from dealing with Taliban militia who are interfering with voter registration. And I repeat, this is how France wants to treat AFGHANISTAN. This is how France wants to deal with the clear case.

UPDATE:

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has much more on this topic and other European commitment problems in his June 30, 2004 entry. Along the same lines as my comment, he writes: "The Afghan elections are arguably the most important milestone since the campaign to topple the Taliban, in which NATO was also absent. What then would constitute sufficient matter to engage Chirac?"

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsi...c_and_afgh.html

I have some problem to have a clear understanding of Chirac's stance about Afghanistan. By the way, this has not been very mediatized in France.
I thought - and keep thinking - that France was committed to reach a normalized situation in Afghanistan, along with the US.
The reason why Chirac does not want to send NATO troops into Afghanistan remains to be thoroughly analysed - I mean, I am not convinced about good ole Krauthammer's rhetorics about France's stubborn will of dominance.
This is not fresh news that France is exerting, for example, a particular influence on African countries, and that by now the US is interfering within this traditional pré carré, notably to set anti-islamic militias all around the area. This is a source of tension for Paris.
Now, regarding NATO, I reckon that Chirac is very distrustful about Bush's motives, and does not want to help him indirectly in Iraq, by allowing the US to withdraw its own military gradually from Afghanistan, in order to re-deploy them in Iraq where more help is needed. This might partly explain the stance, added to the fact that, more generally, Chirac does not want european troops to become auxiliaries of the US military set up, to be used and deployed on command from Washington. But all of this is not sufficient to justify / explain such a reluctancy to help where it is needed.

Well, this is only a few ideas. I don't have more insights right now, I will try to find some time to find insightful explanations about it.

I simply think that the truth is somewhere in the middle between Krauthammer's rhetorics and plain denial of France's political agenda.

It's gotta be one of the two reasons: either France doesnt wanna get involved, or it's interested in instability and ongoing conflict. Which one do you prefer, JY?

None of them, MrJ. Your post draws the following comments:

- my "preference" is not what is important - truth is;

- I would appreciate some more sense of degree and shade from you - if your interpretation is either negative one number 1 or negative one number 2, it leaves no place to a more complex deciphering - and this is my problem each time right wingers come to comment on my country's stance. Which does not mean I am here to defend the French government whatsoever.

There's another article where Chirac is quoted as saying "we are not the servants of the US," in connection with this particular decision.

Your remark that he didn't want to free up US troops for deployment in Iraq is interesting. Opposing the War was one thing. I could even understand not wanting to put French troops there in harm's way in the post war period. But trying to impair the US ability to stabilize Iraq? And doing so at the possible expense of stability and democracy in Afghanistan, a war which he supposedly supported? Hmm.

Does Chirac just want the US to fail in Iraq, or does he want us to fail in both places? Certainly a US failure would seem to improve his (and France's) credibility, standing and bargaining power. After all, if Iraq is a miserable failure, he'll get to say "I told you so." And how important is building democracy in either of these countries compared to the pleasure of that ?

It kind of sounds like Chirac doesn't like playing in this sandbox (NATO) anymore, because he thinks there is a bully in it, so he wants to go play in another sandbox (the EU) where he can be the bully.

Sorry, but I've got to call this one the way it see it. I may not agree with all of Krauthammer's rhetoric about this being a long term French goal, but I'm thinking that Chirac is not showing much statesmanship here. When allies cannot agree to do something relatively basic like this to promote democracy, so much for the much vaunted multi-lateralism. What happens the next time, when Chirac wants to use the NSF for something?

- woolfe

The only thing I can comment on right now is that Chirac's decision is unclear to me. If, as you write, his motivation is to have the US failing both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, this is inappropriate to say the least. Not only I would not understand it, but I would not support it at all.
Now the question is the following - what is the logic to send french troops in Afghanistan, along with the US ones, where they keep working together, if this is to make this effort fail in the end ? I just don't get it.

Woolfe, you talk of "pleasure" to see the US fail and have France gain more credibility. I disagree. What kind of "pleasure" is this ? There are sensible commentators in France, and it is obvious to anyone with two neurones connected, that there are new stakes in this troubled world, where the West has common enemies to fight and where failure of one is not an option, in everybody's common interest.

Now, and I would remind you the article I have posted the link to recently, this Iraq war has pointed out a few important challenges for Europe. The europeans have to build a common and credible force, able to handle the raising dangers in remote theaters of operations worldwide. Chirac, I believe, is fully convinced of the necessity to contribute to this achievement.

Second point, and this is maybe more a psychological issue, Chirac, attacked personally during the Iraq disagreement by the political and media anglosphere, is more distrustful than ever regarding the Bush admin decisions and motives. He is particularly alarmed by the neo-cons theories and grand dessein regarding the muslim world.

Mixing these issues, it would explain why the necessity to send NATO troops into Afghanistan is perhaps viewed by the Chirac crowd as a possible source of global conflict escalation between civilizations.

Just a few ideas here, I don't know if they are relevant. I need myself more light shed on all of it to decipher this situation.

He doesn't trust the motives of the "neo-cons," and so disapproves of a limited Nato deployment to guard polling places and voter registration boths that would last all of a couple weeks? Yeah, that or he's thumbing his nose at Bush and the US. You make the call.

I have a question for you. Is the Arab/Islamic vote a major issue in elections in France these days? Also, when does Chirac come up for re-election?

- woolfe

JY we all live in the same world, where money and power rule everything, do we not? If France doesnt want to send troops to Afghanistan to stabilize the country right before the elections, it HAS to mean that either France doesnt want to spend money/lose french soldiers there - or, in other words, doesnt wanna get involved - or France is actually interested in keeping the conflict hot.

The arab/islamic vote is not a major issue in elections these days. People from arab / muslim descent are less than 10 % of the french population, and less than 10 % of the voters (not all of them vote - far from that; abstention goes sky-high on election days within this population, what's more it does not hold the french nationality for part of it).
To be frank, I don't know what is the real impact of the arab/muslim world on France's foreign policy. I for one don't want in any case this entity to influence it prevalingly.

And Chirac does not come up for re-election before 2007 - unfortunately; I would prefer him out of office. His place is in a court, tried for some public money misuse some years ago. Immunity attached to the presidential tenure is so great ....

A few other comments. First, as I already wrote, I don't have all the keys to understand the motives here. If you have any, I am interested.

Second, and this is intended to Mr J, yes, we live in a world where money and power rule everything. Using this deciphering grid, you should be much more aware of the misdeeds of the Bush admin, instead of blindly supporting it the way you usually do.

Any good propagandist is fully aware of all of the possibilities to promote and spew baseless discourses and rhetorics. This is your business here Curley Joe. Not mine. I have no problem to face and acknowledge facts and truth, wherever it comes from and possibly embarassing it could be. I just want to be certain the facts are really so, because too many people like you pollute this kind of forum.
YOU are unable to see through the coating on the lies, manipulations, misleadings, and so on. That's your problem - live with it or not.

JY:

I appreciate the information. I will follow the next French election when it comes up. I am inclined to believe that a regime change on both sides of the Atlantic might help long term French/US relations.

- woolfe

I think so too. Regime change and more real democracy for all.

Pills are available for sale against acute crisis of paranoia; you should try one day. But, as it seems to concern more likely stupidity, I am not sure science can help here.

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....=371#post410187

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/50star-big.jpg

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....=371#post413239