den Beste: The French are Toast
A few days ago I quipped that there was no French word for chutzpah because a fish has no word for water. Another reason we can't use that word is that it is inadequate; it's like describing an ocean as a "really big puddle". The latest diplomatic moves by the French demonstrate truly unmitigated and unprecedented gall.
The new theory is that the US and UK will fight the war, and will spend the money to pay for it (upwards of $70 billion), and that once the war is over we'll happily turn post-war administration of Iraq over to the UN.
President Jacques Chirac has already laid down the guidelines for French policy, centred on the need to place all Iraqi reconstruction in the hands of the United Nations. French officials say such a move will not only reassert the central role of the UN in managing crises but also provide a proper legal framework for the delicate task of nation-building.
So in an address delivered in London, Monsieur de Villepin has offered the US an olive branch, after a fashion. All we have to do is apologize and repent, and France won't hold our misbehavior against us. They'll let bygones be bygones. After all, given that France considers the US such a deep and valuable friend of long standing, it certainly can't hold our recent misbehavior against us, as long as we acknowledge the error of our ways and promise not to do it again.
These times of great changes call for a renewed close and trusting relationship with the United States," Mr. de Villepin said, adding that France is willing.
"Because they share common values, the United States and France will re-establish close cooperation in complete solidarity," he said. "We owe it to the friendship between our peoples, for the international order that we wish to build together."
He is also holding out his hand to the British, and fondly recalled Franco-British cooperation in WWII. (One must wonder how the Germans will feel about this given that said cooperation was against Germany.)
His rhetoric focuses on how we "must rebuild the world order shattered by the Iraqi crisis," and how any new Iraqi government could only truly be considered legitimate if it were blessed by the UN. But behind his grand and principled talk is a much more concrete concern: the government of France is beginning to realize that there's a damned good chance that French companies are going to get totally frozen out of post-war business deals for equipment and reconstruction and, in particular, to develop Iraq's oil fields. If the US government controls the selection process, that is extremely likely. But if the French can, by some miracle, move the entire administration process into the UN, then in fact it will have the inside track on many of the most lucrative deals.
For example, de Villepin emphasized how critically important it was for the "oil-for-food" deal to restart immediately. His claim was that this was needed for humanitarian reasons, but it is important to note that the majority of that program has been administered by French companies. TotalFinaElf has primarily been responsible for selling the oil, and other French companies have been primary sources of the food and other supplies which have been shipped in.
He also calls for Europe to pull together and to stop feuding over this issue:
And he said Europe must continue to develop "a true European identity," with a "common foreign and security policy."
To this end, France and Britain "must overcome the current difficulties and remain united," De Villepin said.
France is not only willing to forgive the US, France is also willing to forgive the UK, as long as it, too, apologizes and stops misbehaving. All that the UK has to do is to stop striking out on its own, toe the "European" line, and let the French speak on behalf of Europe, and everything will be hunky-dory. His speech made clear that European unity was vital, and also made clear that the French were right in all of this, which implies that the only way for European unity to be regained is for everyone to acknowledge the superior wisdom and morality of France's point of view.
I can't decide if this means that de Villepin is deluded, desperate, or utterly contemptuous of our mental processes. Likely it's a bit of all three, actually, but there's a strong strain of desperation here. France is in deep trouble.
They have now been deeply damaged diplomatically, and after months on center stage are suddenly revealed as being unimportant. There's now a rising concern that this process actually has effectively killed the UN as anything other than a place to meet and talk. They're also deeply worried about direct US post-war administration of Iraq.
France keenly needs to resurrect some authority for the UN or see the dire US warnings about its disappearance as a world player come true — with all that would mean to France's own influence.
Equally, UN cover for post-war reconstruction will be vital if France is to benefit from the multi-billion dollar contracts that will be handed out. Without it, fears that the US will hand over the bulk of the work to its own business interests are likely to come true.
France has been Iraq's leading supplier of goods under the UN's now-frozen oil-for-food programme, and the finance ministry in Paris has set up a joint committee with business leaders to examine ways of ensuring privileged access to the Iraqi market once the war is over.
But if the government in Paris is officially optimistic that its importance will ultimately be recognised, it must be aware that there is much also that counts against it in the formation of a new international order.
A victorious America will be in no mood to do favours to a country that it believes tried to turn the world against it.
And if the war goes badly, Washington could well decide it was Chirac's opposition that convinced the Iraqis there was something worth fighting for. Contempt for France would then turn to outright hostility.
Especially if it turns out to be true that the French played a key part in our diplomatic failure with Turkey regarding use of their territory in the war. Not to mention if we discover evidence in Iraq itself of questionable French dealings with Saddam over the last 12 years.
There is what the French must consider a disturbing tendency now for high-profile voices in the US to declare that the French are hostile, and that there is a real and permanent breach. Far from this being seen here as a temporary aberration in a long and fruitful relationship, more and more editorial writers and other opinion makers here in the US seem to be saying that there is no point in even attempting to resurrect even the semblance of friendship with France. And those same voices are beginning to talk about the idea that both the UN and NATO have outlived their usefulness. If these voices hold sway, it would be a disaster for France whose primary claim to international influence derives from its membership, and veto, in those two organizations. And all of this rhetoric focuses on France and on Chirac as the reason.
Nor is it only Americans who are coming to blame Chirac. Anti-French diatribes are becoming more and more common in the UK.
You're also starting to see nervous articles written by Frenchmen who are attempting to reassure themselves that things may be OK, and not doing a very good job of it.
There is still the chance of symbolic boycotts in areas such as tourism or luxury products. However, any decline in French earnings here may be more the result of a weaker dollar against the euro than any boycotts. Furthermore, 30 to 40 percent of the outstanding stock in the largest French firms is held by U.S. pension funds. They would oppose any boycotts that reduced the value of their shares.
It may well be that pension funds in France have that kind of influence over public and private decisions, but if American pension funds do I'm not aware of it. No one who is deciding whether to take their great European vacation in France or in Italy instead consults the recent quarterly report from their 401-K to see how much stock is held in each nation's companies.
And his comments about tourism conceal the fact that this is a major part of France's economy, and that it is currently in deep trouble. Part of that is due to the fact that tourism always suffers during major wars, but part of it is likely a lot of Americans deciding that they can, after all, live without seeing Paris.
And in fact, the French economy as a whole is in deep trouble. Its structural problems are well known, and even acknowledged in France itself by many. Government is too big; taxes are too high; labor rules stifle business hiring. Unemployment is rising, which means that government expenditures for unemployment benefits are rising even as tax revenue falls, and the government now faces a budget deficit well in excess of what EU rules permit. The irony is that it was France itself which was primarily responsible for those rules being put into place.
German editorial voices are beginning to ask whether the recent diplomatic alliance with France was actually wise, and to propose the idea of changing sides. French editorialists are beginning to wonder if maybe the government may have gone too far.
And the centerpiece of France's foreign policy appears to be in shambles. Their goal was to create a unified Europe, which spoke with a single voice on foreign policy, and whose voice was anti-American. The new EU superstate would be dominated by France and would serve as a counterweight against the US. Le Monde no longer believes this is possible:
More remarkable still, considering its general encouragement of the idea that Europe should function as an opposing counterweight to the United States, was Le Monde's admission Tuesday that this pillar of French strategy for the European Union as a whole had essentially collapsed.
The crisis among the EU's members and candidates about an external policy based on opposition to the United States, said its editorial, "requires abandoning the community's political correctness and saying that the idea of Europe-puissance is probably dead." Only a Europe of several small pioneer groups, operating at greater speed on various issues, "would allow creation on the international scene of a coherent pole that isn't only in economics or trade," Le Monde said.
Of course, there's always hope.
In its manner, Le Monde held out hope for the reasonably short term. "Hope that at 18 months from a presidential election the United States would dominate the fear that has shaken it and, in rejecting George W. Bush, would turn its back on a policy that isolates it from the world and imperils its own founding values," the newspaper's editorial said.
Yet again the fundamental assumption that the US is entirely responsible for the breach and that the only acceptable solution is for the US to acknowledge its lack of wisdom, its simplicity and its unsophisticated ways, and return to the clearly-superior policies advocated by the French. After all, Chirac is so much more popular with American voters than Bush is, right?
Well, maybe it looks that way if all you see are news reports about antiwar demonstrations. But the polls have clearly showed that the vocal protests represent a distinctly minority view, and also show a very strong and rising support now for the idea of bypassing the UN.
Dilacerator recently wrote about how the final goal for many politicians is to leave a historical legacy. Having achieved the top job in their respective nations, having "won" the game, they then mentally compete against all the previous and future occupants of the office in hopes of standing out in the history books. His comments were made about Tony Blair, but it applies equally to Chirac. I think that at one time Chirac hoped he would indeed make history and go down next to De Gaulle as among the great leaders of France.
Now it seems as if he will instead go down in history as being among the worst leaders in crisis that France has ever had, whose misbegotten policies and inept execution will lead to a drastic loss of diplomatic stature in the world, influence in Europe, and what may turn out to be the catastrophic collapse of France's economy. Do Chirac and de Villepin truly think that continuing to preach sanctimoniously to the British and Americans will somehow redeem the whole situation?
Do they actually think at this point that we will be gullible enough to forget everything that has happened, and to let a snake back into our house for another poisonous strike against us?
de Villepin's speech in London sets an all-time high for chutzpah. It breaks the Olympic medal for gall. The arrogance and contempt required to even be willing to deliver that speech goes beyond anything I think I've ever encountered. de Villepin, and his boss Chirac, are deeply in need of a rude awakening. Fortunately, there's every reason to believe that they're going to get one, very soon.
denbeste.nu |
