It looks like the new government in France is starting to pay dividends for the U.S. on the international scene. The former government had taken the approach of being a continual thorn in the U.S.'s side. They accepted that they could not compete on the international stage as a superpower, but they could annoy the superpower. The previous strategy had been to marshal world opposition to the U.S. policy on [fill in the blank], thereby increasing their relative power.
This is a useful ploy to increase one's relative strength and prestige on the world stage, and doesn't require a growing economy or serious military--hence, it was perfect for France. Not to be too glib about this, France was also well positioned to adopt this approach given its historic importance in international affairs. With its current 'might' and military capabilities, however, it was relying on past glories and relationships. Nevertheless, if it could be seen as the head of European/international opposition to the U.S., it had power.
The problem, of course, is that their approach forced them to assume the U.S. was wrong--on anything and everything significant. If limiting U.S. power is your goal, you can be fighting on the wrong side of battles when the U.S. is in the right. (And I'll concede, to many French and U.S. liberals, the U.S. being right almost never happens.) Basically, if a strong America was useful (like promoting religious, political, and economic freedom internationally), then the French were not useful, under their former approach.
Enter Nicolas Sarkozy, who is not anti-American, and his new Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. Mr. Kouchner has decades of experience with the factions in Iraq, and is, it seems, well respected there. France has sent him to Iraq where he is meeting with the principles.
In short, while he is frustrating 'diplomats' in France--"a number of diplomats remain skeptical toward his initiative, warning that it could put France and its citizens at greater risk from terrorist attack"--he is getting praise from the U.S. and Britain. This runs contrary to conventional French-diplomat thinking, which is, essentially, pro-Iraq-civil war: "The prevailing view in a significant part of the French diplomatic community is that mediation in Iraq is futile and that the civil war needs to run its course and hand a decisive victory to one faction before the violence can end." How courageous. Let them kill each other (second quotation) so that they don't kill us (first quotation.) I am not, by the way, saying allowing a civil war to run its course is never the approach a foreign power might need to adopt. Circumstances and ability might limit a country's military, diplomatic and humanitarian abilities to end such a conflict. But France's prior absence from the Iraq problem has helped cause the current unrest. It has emboldened Syria and Iran's covert fueling of the conflict and not allowed for a unified world voice to speak against the violence. The lack of unity, in turn, gives other anti-U.S. countries an 'out' to not help.
The irony, of course, is that if Mr. Kouchner is successful in his diplomatic efforts, France will get much of the glory, with none of the casualties and military expenditures, and a blood-thirsty tyrant will have been removed from the Middle East. Their former approach--which the diplomatic corps seem still enthralled by--got them nothing but the notion that they were pro-dictators and anti-U.S. And, at the same time, if you followed last year's Muslim riots in France, it doesn't seem their own Muslim population was all that smitten by the former government.
For now, left and right French newspapers are supporting the move. Conservative-leaning 'Le Figaro' editorialized: "You can shut yourself off for four years in the conviction to have been right but that doesn't increase the role our country plays on the international scene." And liberal 'Le Monde' wrote: "It's time to stop lecturing the Americans about their errors and start contributing to a solution." Contributing to a solution, rather than deliberately hoping for and encouraging a problem--a problem costing soldiers' their lives--is indeed the way to go. I still believe ridding the world of Saddam was a good thing. The price paid has been heavy. But the price going forward will certainly be lower if the historically freedom-loving peoples of the world unite to let Iran and factions in Iraq know that civil war and barbarism will not be tolerated. France's shift, and I hope it is a complete one, is significant. It could help to transform world opinion and speed up a resolution. Mr. Kouchner was a lone voice supporting the U.S. in the early days of the war, but now he has a chance for (his philosophical) right to increase (France's) might. It must have been quite difficult, politically, for him to survive this long. But, thankfully, he has prevailed politically, and hopefully he will diplomatically as well. The article describing this transformation is here. It gives a great review of this change, and insight into the 'diplomats'' way of thinking. You should read it.
Useful that,
Thomas More
allthesemore@yahoo.com
Recent Comments