Posted on 08/07/2006 1:07:55 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
First, the good news. America and France have patched up the most rancorous diplomatic dispute of the 21st century and agreed a ceasefire resolution designed to end the brutal conflict raging in Lebanon.
And the bad news? There isn't a hope in hell that this resolution will curtail the violence. It is inconceivable that Hizbollah will agree to a "full cessation of hostilities" so long as Israeli troops occupy Lebanese territory. The militia's response to the deal was to fire a barrage of missiles, killing at least 10 Israelis.
The Israeli military, for its part, has no intention of withdrawing from southern Lebanon so long as Hizbollah threatens its northern border.
That said, the ceasefire proposal hatched by French and American diplomats at the weekend is at least a step in the right direction. And the most surprising aspect of these first tentative steps at international crisis management is that Washington's closest ally is France, not Britain.
This will come as a surprise to all those poodle-watchers who have been castigating Tony Blair for subjugating foreign policy to the Bush White House. But the truth is that relations between Paris and Washington have moved a long way since early 2003, when President Jacques Chirac's intransigence gave the American-led coalition no alternative but to invade Iraq.
The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" have made a remarkable comeback - so much so that only last week the US House of Representatives allowed French fries back on the canteen menu, where for the past three years they had languished under the heading "freedom" fries.
As the former colonial power in Lebanon, the French certainly have more to offer in terms of influencing Lebanese factions than Britain, but this is not the only reason for the emergence of this unlikely entente cordiale.
Apart from Iraq, where predictions of civil war daily lend Mr Chirac's anti-war stance greater credibility, the French have proved themselves useful allies of Washington on a number of issues relating to the war on terror.
It was mainly through the intervention of the Quai d'Orsay that the Syrians were persuaded to give up their occupation of Lebanon and allow the country to function as a free democracy for the first time in decades.
The White House has also been pleasantly surprised by the robust position that Paris has adopted towards Iran in the long-running drama over Teheran's nuclear-enrichment programme.
Unlike the former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, who never missed an opportunity to declare his opposition to the use of military force, Mr Chirac has publicly declared that France would be prepared to use the ultimate sanction - its nuclear deterrent - if the Iranian programme ever threatened the security of French citizens.
This is the kind of talk they like in the White House, and the uncompromising tone of Mr Chirac's rhetoric, together with the tangible benefits of French intervention in Lebanon, has resulted in a melting of the diplomatic froideur.
On a more practical level, the White House is well aware that, if a peacekeeping force is to be sent to southern Lebanon, France is the only country in a position to provide it, as American and British forces are already severely strained by their current commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The revival of French influence in Washington must be particularly galling for Mr Blair after the considerable political damage he has suffered for persisting in his close alliance with the American president.
But if Britain's star is in the decline, this is because Washington has finally woken up to the weakness of Mr Blair's domestic position and the ineffectiveness of the Foreign Office, which seems institutionally incapable of dealing with blatant threats to international security.
Sentimentality has never counted for much among the cold-blooded calculations of Washington's power brokers, and President Bush's courtship of Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, suggests that preparations are well under way at the White House to move on from the era of Bush/Blair.
The Bush administration's deep-seated suspicion of the Foreign Office has already resulted in the removal from office of two foreign secretaries: the preening Robin Cook was dumped for criticising the American policies on the Kyoto Protocol and missile defence, and Straw was removed for pursuing his egregious policy of appeasement towards Teheran. Margaret Beckett is no doubt calculating that so long as the Bush White House has no firm policy on caravanning, she is safe.
Nor has the Foreign Office's credibility been helped by the recent interventions of two senior former employees. The latent anti-Americanism of Sir Rodric Braithwaite, our former man in Moscow, broke into the open in an intemperate article he wrote last week denouncing Mr Blair's alliance in Washington, while suspicions about pro-Arab bias were reinforced by the ludicrous suggestion on Sky News at the weekend by Oliver Miles, our former ambassador to Libya, that the recent hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah had been caused by the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank.
With diplomats like these, one might ask, who needs enemies?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is the politicians rather than the diplomats who must resolve the current crisis.
All the talk this week will be about ceasefires and the creation of a multinational peacekeeping force. But the brutal truth is that until the world's powers find a way to disarm Hizbollah - an objective that is shared by both the Israeli and Lebanese governments - the chances of a permanent ceasefire taking hold in southern Lebanon are negligible.
The U.S. doesn't talk to foreign countries. It lacks diplomacy. I dare say talks with nations have never ceased. Now we engage the "surrender monkeys" and put frog fries back on the House cafeteria menu. Alas, alack!
We should've just called them "chips" in solidarity with our British cousins.
Now that's what I call good news!
I'll have to disagree with Con Coughlin. Chirac did not mention Iran in that speech - in actual fact I think this was a direct threat agsint Syria, not Iran.
Secondly, Chirac did not limit himself to the security of French citizens. He said if ever "French Interests" are threatened under certain circumstances he could envisage the use of nuclear weapons.
Again, that could very well be a warning to Syria regarding French allies in Lebanon, as well as crertain commericial interests France has in Africa.
Did anyone say "disproportionate"?
There is no bigger surrender monkey than Jack Straw, Blackburn would be stripped of public funds if I had my way (hope theres no decent folk on the board that live in Blackburn), at least France is waking up to threat of muslims, mind you you'd have to if you had five million of the mother f*****s living in your country.
Partner a peace deal with France for the Mideast???Who cares what those Sissymaries think?
Like hell. France will never be anything other than America's adversary. Trust France and die.
American boys have died since 2000 because of French actions and inactions. I'll never, ever forgive France or the French people. They said "We're all American's now", after 9/11, which meant absolutely nothing when our vital interests were at stakee. The opportunity for friendship has come and gone for France. Now, the Brits and Aussies; I'll buy them beer and forgive a heck of a lot. They put "skin" into the game, whereas France traded with our enemies against us.
SFS
Exactly. Diplomacy simply doesn't work.
"just call them chips, in solidarity with our British cousins"
Capital notion, old chap! However did you Yanks credit those beastly wogs across the Channel with that which they never invented, but rather stole from us, during the late Napoleonic unpleasantness?
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2006/chirac_speech_armedforces_finistere011906.asp
The pertinent passage is quoted below but note that in the preceding passages Chirac talks about France's interests and possibility to project power - and the importance of its nuclear deterrence to accomplish this.
"As I emphasized immediately after the attacks of 11 September 2001, nuclear deterrence is not intended to deter fanatical terrorists. Yet, the leaders of States who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
Note that he talks of "terrorist means AND weapons of mass destruction". The response would be "adapted" but nuclear weapons are not ruled out - and hinted at.
Now most commentators meant that Chirac made these statements mainly as "bluster", to affirm the French existence on the international scene. I consider that at best only a partial analysis. I think Chirac also meant this as direct signal to certain Muslim leaders.
Regarding your second assertion that we [the US, the West] need the French on our side, it may well be correct, but it is a very complex matter, and I beg leave to return to that in a later post.
Sorry, I don't need a translation, I do speak french. But only cause I have to (lol, I know, how could I learn that)... And that translation isn't correct 1:1. French language has many words more than English, in English it's an art of interpretation. Doesn't matter, terrorists and States who support terrorists are equal to me and should be punished. Like Lebanon and HizbAllah.
La dissuasion nucléaire, je l'avais souligné au lendemain des attentats du 11 septembre 2001, n'est pas destinée à dissuader des terroristes fanatiques. Pour autant, les dirigeants d'Etats qui auraient recours à des moyens terroristes contre nous, tout comme ceux qui envisageraient d'utiliser, d'une manière ou d'une autre, des armes de destruction massive, doivent comprendre qu'ils s'exposent à une réponse ferme et adaptée de notre part. Et cette réponse peut être conventionnelle. Elle peut aussi être d'une autre nature.
Une traduction n'est pas nécessaire j'espère,
OK, those who can speak French will easily see that the original French version was correctly translated into English. In fact those sentences do not contain any words that could lead to a misinterpretation, and they didn't,
For my part this discussion is closed. I will discuss the pros and cons of France's involvement elsewhere.
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.