The real reasons France tries to undermine the United States

After reading Kenneth Timmerman's condemnation of France's $100 billion profiteering from Saddam's cruel regime (The French War For Oil), and my own recent article (From Madrid to Paris), some commentators expressed the view that France is just an ordinary country defending its interests and is no different than any other country, including the U.S. Indeed, for some in the anti-war camp France is even assumed to be necessarily a morally superior nation.

This view is so thoroughly ignorant of French foreign policy realities that it should really be put to rest once and for all.

Timmerman points out France's irresponsible dealings with Iraq, which included conditional oil contracts, huge infrastructure deals (construction, roads, utilities, etc.), as well as illegal weapons sales and perhaps even bribes under the UN oil-for-food regime. This was a major part of French policy to undermine the sanctions regime, which was an aspect of its broader policy of triangulating against the U.S. to promote its commercial and strategic interests, especially with corrupt regimes abandoned by the U.S. (Saddam, Iran, Sudan, Cuba...).

I don't believe, as Timmerman, charges that this was a primary reason for opposing the Iraq war, but this would hardly seem to matter. Rather, I think France took a strategic (triangulating) gamble that it would oppose U.S. policy on control of WMD, proliferation, and fighting the War on Terror, by aligning itself with third world dictatorships, the Arab world and the transnational third world/alter-globalization movements. The payoff would come in the form of more defense, commercial and infrastructure contracts with third world countries, in particular oil rich Middle Eastern countries, and enhanced geopolitical prestige gained, it was hoped, at the expense of the U.S.

I can see why the average American would have trouble accepting this view, precisely because the U.S. could not pursue its interests in this manner without major condemnation by the rest of the world and by its own citizenry. Still, before dismissing this view out of hand, consider what France has accomplished in the last twelve months (a list by no means exhaustive):

In the months following the Iraq war, France spent much time courting much of the Arab/Muslim world (Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco), filling the void and the "triangulatable" space left behind by the U.S., in order to improve its diplomatic and commercial relations by presenting itself as an alternative pole for opposing U.S. strategic interests. (Just Google de Villepin's itinerary over that period and this will become clear.) Those interests now clearly extend to opposing U.S. policy for self-determination, liberalization and human rights in the Arab/Muslim world. Chirac has recently officialized, including at a recent joint appearance with Mubarek, French opposition to U.S. policy of encouraging liberalization, denouncing this as "interference" and favoring an "alternative" model of political development from within. Just as France's "alternative" model for "combating" terrorism by opposing U.S. "militarism" is based on nothing of substance, it's "alternative" model for political development in the Middle East would also appear to be little more than a front for promoting French commercial and strategic interests in the region, with the complicity of authoritarian regimes perfectly willing to agree to this "alter" political model. France's noisy condemnation of U.S. Iraq policy was reported to have spurred residents of Arab countries to name their newborn children "Chirac" and Chirac's 63% favorability rating in Morocco in the most recent Pew survey of Middle East attitudes, an incredibly high figure for a former colony not ordinarily well disposed to the French Republic, is part of the pay-off for its "alternative" "third worldism". Through its policies, France has recently won defense contracts throughout the Middle East (which are routinely procured through bribery), including for sales of Leclerc tanks to the Emirates and Saudi Arabia (at a loss, I might add). France has recently announced a new initiative to renew arms sales to China and, just a couple of days ago, conducted joint naval exercises off the China coast ahead of Taiwan's elections. This was strongly protested by Taiwan, with whom France is embroiled in a dispute over French bribery of Taiwanese officials in connection with the sale of naval vessels. (The contract included a French warranty of no bribery and indemnification of Taiwan for the full amount of any bribery discovered, all to the great embarrassment of the French state.) As the U.S. is the guarantor of stability in Asia and protection of the democratic government of Taiwan, the French military exercises conducted with China were directed as much at the U.S. as at Taiwan. Internal States and External Statecraft

A thoroughly corrupt business culture and state bureacracy (that has a paranoid view of itself as being in a fierce Machiavellian competition with a U.S. business establishment presumed to be equally or more ruthless), The demonization of an imperialist United States as a distraction, and The passive support of its citizenry. This last point - the passive support of the citizenry - is very important to understand: unlike the U.S., France has effectively no political or citizen control over its foreign policy, which is a purely executive function. This stems from the relationship of the citizen to the State: whereas state power is perceived as inherently dangerous by Americans in our historical tradition of scepticism towards official power, the French centralized state is glorified by its citizenry as the ultimate protector of citizen interests, rather than as a danger to them. As a result, the citizenry has little interest in the details, substance or moral dimension of foreign policy, which are fully delegated and blindly entrusted to this Collective Protector.

The French media may for example report on the sales of billions of dollars of Leclerc tanks to Saudi Arabia (mentioned above), but only as a matter of national economic pride in generating profits for French industry and jobs.

Note that despite France's obsolete 19th Century political paradigm defining society as a struggle between evil capitalists and exploited workers, the fact is that GIAT Industries, which produces the Leclerc, is state-owned and one of the main purposes of selling military hardware at a loss to Arab states is to prevent lay-offs in the failing defense industries.

When the French president or prime minister makes an official state visit to a foreign country (China, India, Brazil, Cuba, etc.), the major item of interested reported by the French media is how many billions of dollars in defense and infrastructure contracts are signed in the course of the official visit, the more the better. This is enthusiastically reported by the media with a shockingly commercial crassness, that is, unless you are French, in which case you are presumably proud that your government is working for you. You really have to live in France to experience this.

This unconsciously obscene state bureacratic commercialism in foreign policy matters was exemplified by France's naive attempt to have Woody Allen persuade us to "fall in love again" after the Iraq intervention last year, an example of a major failure in cross-cultural marketing. In this regard, it is entirely hypocritical that France purports to disdain the supposed greater crass commercialism of Americans.

One must keep in mind that the French do not oppose American foreign policy because of a high-minded objection to intervention, militarism, commercialism, etc. Nor is there any democratic or citizen checks on its foreign ventures.

Otherwise, France could not have carried out its policy of installing and removing African dictators over the past 40 years resulting in three dozen interventions on that continent. Otherwise, France could not have been complicit in the backing of the Hutu genocide of the Tutsi in Ruanda. Otherwise, France could not have sold bomb-capable nuclear technology to Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s, it could not have sold 8 billion dollars in military equipment; it could not have been training Iraqi pilots in flying Mirage aircraft at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; it could not have conducted bombing raids over Iran on behalf of the Hussein regime; nor could it now be openly advocating sales of advanced military hardware to China or conducting exercises to intimidate Taiwan.

Compare the lone visit by Rumsfeld to Iraq in the 1980s, trumpeted by the left here in Paris as ironclad evidence of U.S. complicity – even responsibity for some – in the Hussein regime.

In France, there is very little public debate about French foreign policy. Few Americans realize that French participation in the first Gulf War was approved by a whopping 92% of the National Assembly and 95% of the Senate. And that was under a Socialist Party majority. By contrast, the U.S. Senate could barely eke out a 52-48 majority. France's blowing up Greenpeace's boat in the 1980s was regarded much less as a morally questionable act than a political embarrassment.

Instead, the French view themselves as in competition with (a more ruthless) United States. The French naturally assume that everybody else is at least as cynical and morally depraved as they are, the only difference being that, in their view, the U.S. plays the game more viciously than they do, acquiring an unfair advantage. for instance:

I was told several times before the war by French people familiar with French policy, including many knowledgable about the defense industries, "Of course, we are selling illegal arms to Saddam's regime" in violation of the embargo. "But don't tell me that the U.S. isn't". This proves more about a cultural attitude than the existence of actual arms sales. This also reminds me of the surprise expressed by many French people to me as to why Bush hasn't simply "planted" WMD in Iraq. I often hear French politicians and intellectuals these days reaffirm, "I still believe that the U.S. did invade Iraq for its oil …" almost as an acknowledgement of the implausibility of the view before professing their firm believe in its absolute truth. This, by the way, is entirely reflective of the French establishment's degree of contact with reality and ability to constructively engage the challenges of the modern world. Yesterday, I heard a discussion on French radio over U.S. Iraq policy between MPs of Chirac's center-right coalition in power and the center-left (socialist) opposition. After expressing universal agreement among themselves that the imperialist Americans were, after all, only interested in oppressive militaristic domination of a helpless country, seizing its oil (in a bid now thought to have gone "awry", given the economic absurdity of such a thesis) and, of course, enriching "Halliburton", they proceeded to debate the "real" issues. Here's another interesting fact that I note in the discussion about the war. Whereas the French are intimately familiar with Bush's "sixteen words" about uranium in Africa, the "imminent" threat, the "Halliburton" contracts, Blair's "forty-five" minutes – all of these being "politico-media" themes that originate from within the U.S./U.K. press establishment before being implanted into the French collective media experience with the appropriate local spin – the French citizenry know no more about the ins and outs of French foreign policy than you or I know, for example, about the agreed schedule for eliminating textile tarriffs in Southeast Asia under the WTO accords. Indeed, French foreign policy is viewed by the citizenry as a purely technical matter for unfettered implementation by the State of the interests of the collectivity - no questions asked.

Anyone who says that the U.S. (or the U.K. or Canada) acts just like France has no idea what they're talking about, is making entirely unwarranted assumptions, and simply has not studied the question in any depth. A good starting place would be to look at the history of France's alliance with Israel, followed by its abandonment of that country for the sake of procuring market share in oil-rich Arab countries. This might also provide insight on France's more recent criticisms of Israel and alignment with Arafat.

Consider also the recent French public, official and media reaction to the scandals involving the earlier mentioned bribes in the sales of frigates to Taiwan, and to the Executive Life affair in California that was settled at a cost of $760 million.

In the frigate bribes scandal, there is no public or media curiosity to speak of about which government officials were using bribes to procure these contracts and what they might of done. Who cares? The sole preoccupation is how much the state and thus the citizenry stands to lose in the lawsuit brought by Taiwan (currently the subject of French military intimidation, as mentioned). In the Executive Life matter, it took 6 months for the opposition even to raise any question about the propriety of the government using the public treasury to negotiate protection from criminal prosecution for Chirac's personal friend, the billionaire François Pinault.

If you think that France is like everyone else, then you would have no trouble imagining George Bush using U.S. government resources to negotiate protection for Bill Gates in a European criminal proceeding without a word of objection from the public, the Democrats or the media.

The U.S. and most of its allies respect certain bounds of mutually shared collective interest that, I think it is clear, France will freely overstep in ways that put it closer to the Soviet Union and Pakistan than to the U.S. or Great Britain. This might be arms sales to highly questionable regimes. France stands alone in having sold nuclear weapons capable technology to two Middle East regimes: Israel and Iraq.

I am not sure that "evil" is the right word, but France is, among Western powers, the closest one can get to a "rogue" state.

The real questions at this point should concern how we should "contain" France - through engagement or through isolation? I am personally undecided here. I find attractive the idea that the Bush administration (or any U.S. administration) should isolate a country whose policies are deeply and irremediably immoral as well as hugely destabilizing of the global order. On the other hand, it might be better to limit the damage the French are capable of through engaging them, giving them an "outlet" for their puerile anti-Americanism and delusional obsession with their own grandeur, and closing up the space in which they can cynically "triangulate" against the U.S. in the wanton pursuit of their deeply cynical and destructive commercial and geopolitical interests.

I know Trent will probably disagree with me here, but I think Clinton might have managed this better than Bush.

2 posted on 03/23/2004 3:56:26 AM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)

Henry Kissinger in the 2nd or 3rd volume of his autobiographical series said it clearly. The Americans and French look at the role of an ally in totally different ways. Americans see an alliance as a way to split up the responsibility and effort to achieve a common goal. The French, historically and consistently, view an alliance as a way to weaken and undercut the strongest ally to the benefit of the French themeselves. Any success in reaching any real goal is secondary to increasing France's power and influence. This strategic view dates back at least to the 18th century if not longer.

if my memory serves me correctly i think france used to be a country or something.

Yes it was. Then they kicked Napoleon out - TWICE.
(I guess they couldn't stand the success)
/sarcasm

9 posted on 03/23/2004 5:30:26 AM PST by Condor51 ("Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments." -- Frederick the Great)

Napoleon wasn't exactly a continous success. His escapades in Russia were
ruinous to the French empire.

True. And Timmerman says that Villepain (sp?) is a BIG fan of Napoleon and Machiavelli.

I wouldn't doubt that Kerry and Clinton are Machiavelli fans, as well. Americans should strive to rise above that era of European depravity. So should the French.

No way Clinton could have done better. He and the Liberal Democrats in America aid and abet this group. No telling how much money Kerry is having put in off shore acounts for himself now.
The Democrats are selling America out, plain and simple.

Yeah, and then they buried him under some Arc in the middle of Paris as some kind of Hero. French people are confused by their own reflection.

Heck, you know - we should just declare war against them and let them surrender.

17 posted on 03/23/2004 6:14:48 AM PST by Gritty ("Post-Marxism, it is Islam that offers an alternative to those subverting the West-Serge Trifkovic)

France has not been an "Ally" since the end of hostilities in WW2. They tried to subvert NATO, boasted their nuclear weapons were aimed " East and West", undermined us thoughout Africa and the Middle East. They are clearly a rival nation, and should be treated as such. It should be OUR National policy to try and thwart them at every turn.

19 posted on 03/23/2004 6:32:57 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")

No, it's the Unknown Soldier that's buried under the Arc de Triomphe. Napoleon's marble coffin is exposed in the Invalides.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.