Why the French behave as they do

Having rescued France in two world wars, Americans are puzzled. Why are they organizing the Security Council against us? Why are they sabotaging the president's plan to bring democracy to Iraq, as we restored democracy to France? Why are they doing this?

What the French are up to, however, is not unreasonable, if one can see the world from the perspective of Paris.

To understand what France is about, and perhaps deal with our French problem with more maturity than dumping champagne in the gutter, let us go back five centuries.

In 1500, there was born in Ghent a future king who would come to dominate the world as we do today. At six, the death of his father Philip of Hapsburg gave Charles the crown of the Netherlands. At 16, the death of his grandfather Ferdinand made him Charles I of Spain and of all its dependencies in Italy and America. At 19, the death of his grandfather Maximilian brought Charles all the hereditary lands of the Hapsburgs and the expectation of being elected Holy Roman Emperor.

In 1519, that title had been in the Hapsburg family four generations. Yet it remained an elective office. And two young and ambitious rulers challenged Charles for that title: Henry VIII of England and Francis I of France. Francis was by far the more formidable.

He set about bribing the electors. But Charles had access to the Medicis and the Fugger bank of Jacob the Rich, the strongest in Europe. Charles bought up more electors and was chosen Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

France was surrounded. Charles ruled almost all of what is today's Spain, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy, except for the Papal States. What did Francis, seething with resentment, do? Exactly what balance of power politics dictated. He began making alliances with the nations not under Charles' control, and went to war.

In 1525, Charles' armies crushed the French Army at Pavia and captured the French king. "Nothing is left to me," Francis I wrote to his mother, "except honor and life."

By agreeing to humiliating peace terms, Francis won his freedom and returned to France. There, he began preparing at once for a new war, winning the support of the pope and the Italian states that were coming to resent the dominance of the hegemonic Charles.

Defeated again, Francis made alliances with Scotland, Sweden and Denmark, with rebellious princes in Germany, even with the infidel Turks, an unprecedented act for a Christian king. Francis fought Charles until his death in 1547. Point of this history: For Francis I, read Jacques Chirac; for Charles V, read George W. Bush.

French was once the language of every court in Europe. I speak German only to my horses, said Frederick the Great. But now, because the Americans speak English, English is the language of diplomacy, of the Internet and the Global Economy.

Once, French culture was predominant. Today, it is not even competitive. It is American television and cinema Europeans watch, American books, magazines and newspapers they read. The Cannes Film Festival cannot compete with the Academy Awards.

Jealous they have been displaced, resentful of having had to be twice rescued by the Americans, France is following the dictates of balance-of-power politics, trying to form up and head up a coalition of the resentful, who equally oppose America's military, economic and cultural hegemony.

When Americans began braying about being the "last superpower" and the "indispensable nation," and tossing our weight around all over the world, it was predictable that this would happen.

Now, the French are trying to assume the leadership of the anti-Americans, and there are hundreds of millions worldwide who would relish seeing the haughty Americans taken down. And with the Red Army back in Russia, France no longer needs us to defend her, nor does she need NATO as a constant reminder of her past dependency.

We brought this on ourselves. Had we packed up and come home after the Cold War, and dissolved NATO and other outdated alliances, America would today be the most courted country on earth.

Instead of our bribing nations to fight their wars, they would be begging us to defend them. Instead of our spending national treasure on bases all over the world, other nations would be buying our arms to defend themselves. Instead of yelling "Yankee, go home," they would be pleading, "Yankee, come back."

The sole consolation of our mismanaged diplomacy is that it is the harmless French who have taken up the anti-American banner, not a more formidable strategic rival like the Russians or Chinese.

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. See what else Pat Buchanan is doing these days.

And since you won't educate yourself on these matters, allow me to give you a little help. A "dependency" is "a territory or state subject to the dominion of another; esp. a province or possession distinct and more less remote." That's according to Webster's.

Macedonia is an independent nation. It selects its own Parliament, President and Prime Minister in free elections with universal suffrage. It has a Constitution that it independently and extensively amended just recently. Macedonians have a full diplomatic mission to us and we have a full diplomatic mission to them.

Thanks Destro in dragging me into this discussion over which I have no control ....

Macedonia is a post war zone that was forced to accept NATO "peacekeepers" by the same people that created and sponsored the war. It is another case of extortion or gun boat diplomacy. It managed to stay cool enough so an Internationl Administrator (colonial governor) was not required as in Bosnia and Kosovo.

However its president is heavily under American influence (Methodist protestant in country where 67% are Orthodox Christians and rest are Muslim, only 1% protestant). The political party in power is more European aligned.

No it is not a colony of USA but it is an economic wasteland and a terrorist breeding ground created by the US foreign policies in the Balkans.

"No it is not a colony of USA but it is an economic wasteland and a terrorist breeding ground..."

Thankyou for concurring with what I have tried to explain to Mr. Empire.

BTW, how is it that a "Macedonian" doesn't know that his own President is chosen by popular vote of the Macedonian people? He is not a leader that is somehow "imposed" on the people of Macedonia, as you seem to imply. If the Macedonians don't like his policies, they are free to vote him out of office in the next election.

He was voted in office in 1998 in one of the most rigged elections ever. The majority of ethnic Macedonias voted for the other presidential candidate.

In 2001 The Albanians in Macedonia were openly on TV announcing that they gave their votes to the current president with a deal that he delivers western Macedonia to them and to block military action against them. In 2001 they got what they were promised with American support. Now that the consitution has been changed with American threat of sanctions and military intervention (which the American public does not like to know) the country is effectivly split in a Albanian zone and Macedonian zone.

The current president got assurance that his next win on the coming elections is secured as long as he backs the USA. He was one of the 10 East European countries that signed the letter of support for the US on the Iraq issue. The presidential candidate that lost against the current president in 1998 is from the current party in power (only got there 3 months ago). They hate the current president. At the moment the defence ministry is not even talking to him and insist that any decision on the Iraq issue rest with the parliament i.e. them and not the president.

Since 1998 until 2001 the Social Democrats (current party) did not accept the current president as president and never refered to him as Mr President but just Mr Trajkovski. In 2001 they accepted him as president so to show a united country at times of war.

In the Balkans "popular vote" does not count for much. You can buy the rural vote with farming supplies and the urban vote with consesions and back room deals. That is what happend in 1998, where villages were bought with bags of flour with USAID written on them and the American ambasador endorsing the candidate and foreign Non-government organisation running around helping the right electorate.

Don't talk to me about elections over there. Australia yes I do belive in popular vote (even as it is being ignored now) but not in Macedonia.

Oh may be you guys don't understand how voting is done there. If you have an Albanian elder in a village or a pretty important Albanian guy in some village and they come in and announce to every one that he would like the people to vote for this candidate you won't belive that 100% will vote for that candidate. Count few and don't bother counting the same, they are all the same. Even OSCE observers were buffled to find whole region voting 100% for one particular candidate in a presidential or parliamentary electrions.

Your history of the failures of collective security during the last century was instructive and incisive. Collective security has always been a project of the utopian left starting with Rosseau; it has no intellectual linkage with what has been called neo-conservatism is this thread. Collective security has been bete noir of neo-conservative thinkers since the 1950s.

The school of thought that has been revived by neo-conservatives to face the challenges of the post-Cold War world is a renewed form of Balance of Power politics and diplomacy. Balance of Power politics recognizes that the reality of human fallibility extends to Nations as well as individuals. It is the International Relations analog to the Founding Fathers concept of Separation of Powers; countervailing powers reduce the chance of adventurism by raising to the cost to an unacceptably high level for the aggressor nation.

We are in the current messy situations in Iraq and North Korea because of eight years of unfettered Utopian Internationalism and Collective Security delusions indulged in under the Clinton administration. Clinton signed scores of agreements all of which were essentially unenforceable. The terrorist agression emmanating from multiple groups in the Middle East was met with passivity under Clinton. The International situation will stabilize only when potential aggressors understand that the cost of agression will be very high militariliy and economically.

Diplomacy must be credibly linked to the potential use of military force in order for it to be effective. What is needed at this point in time is a series of bilateral or multilateral treaties between the US and the "coalition of the willing" to address various security issues. The UN will remain in existence as a glorified debating society but its days as a gurantor of collective security are rapidly coming to a close.

Chirac is not a socialist....Blair is a Socialist.

This is a point that the bushbot "partisanship for the sake of being partisan" types simply do not "get": many conservatives oppose this war, many socialists support it. Tone Blare is a neoliberal "new model" socialist who has bought into the neoconservative, troskyite "global crusade" or "permanent revolution" mentality.

Examine Tone Blare's reasoning for following the American neocon foreign policy agenda: he justifies it in leftist, socialist, "do gooder" terms; it has nothing to do with alleged "war on terror" or other such folderal designed to fool the sheeple. It is all about remaking the world into a socialist/neoliberal/multicultural "new world order" nightmare, which no true conservative should support.

The neocon agenda has a lot of appeal to a lot of leftists and socialists; that is why many of them tacitly support the war whilst decrying the "American cowboy yankee imperialist" who is its figurehead. The socialist technocrats have no objection to a war designed to remake humanity into a more "progessive" type of sheeple; they simply don't like who is attempting to bring it about. They are convinced that what Bush is attempting will fail, but if they were in charge of the affair, it would succeed brilliantly.

Conservatives, libertarians, and those leftists who actually do oppose imperialism (not those who support imperialism under another name) are genuinely antiwar; socialists who believe in creating the "new man" and who believe in a leveling one world government ruled by socialist bureaucrats, are not genuinely antiwar; merely anti-American or anti-Bush or anti-"conservative". Not everyone who is against this particular war is sincere; conversely, not everyone who is against this particular war is anti-American.

French conservatives opposing this war have the happy coincidence of supporting both their principles and their national interests; would that everyone had such obvious coincidences of principles and interests.

"...The only U.S. justified war for a Patriot is one which responds to an attack which either has taken place or an attack which is imminent. Iraq does not qualify under either of these standards....though the Afghan war certainly did!..."

I disagree. Iraq DOES qualify under "attack which is imminent" by Saddam's aiding and abetting terrorist groups whose purpose is attacking the United States and her citizens.

When you speak of standards, you speak of a measurement. That measurement has a base (minimum) and ceiling (maximum). Sometimes, there is the dimension of frequency (time) applied. In any case, corrective action is applied when things are not within standard. And in this case the measurement is the loss of American lives and, in my opinion, with a regard to time.

What, to you, is the minimum standard for loss of American lives before you believe there needs to be action? I would argue that the toll is beyond the 9/11 loss of well over 2,000 Americans since this has been going on for at least 12 years with Saddam as a player in one respect or another.

I agree that alqueda were headquartered in Afghanistan but I submit to you that, and as someone else explained, these terrorist groups aren't so much one huge corporation or organization as they are affiliated franchises. At least one franchise resides in Iraq and is OVERTLY supported by Saddam. Including Zaraqawi...

A couple of links to try:
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/283/zarqawi.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2003/710.htm

We're repeating the history of the Roman Empire. I used to think we shouldn't go further down that path, but 9/11, unfortunately, shows that we can't do that, safely.

That's exactly the same kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which led the Romans down their own path to ruin. Once you have bought into the imperialist logic, all of your actions make further incidents of "blowback" inevitable, which justify more imperialistic actions, which result in more blowback "incidents" which justify more empire, and so on, in a rapidly decreasing vicious cycle, until nothing of worth is left.

Your use of the word "safety" is significant; I refer you to Franklin's words on those who would give up essential liberty for momentary safety. We have reached the point where the sheeple can be stampeded in any direction desired, provided the sheep herder can promise "safety". We live in the real world; "safety" is not something that is natural or that comes without a steep price; but the sheeple crave it, and that is all that matters in a "democracy".

Thankyou, bobi. I believe the election you are referring to occured in 1999, not in 1998. The losing opposition party (SDSM), which complains so bitterly about "rigged" elections, did not mind doing the same thing themselves in earlier elections. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they suddenly develop a keen interest in fair elections.

I am so unimpressed with their histrionics.

And so is OSCE which oversaw the voting and submitted preliminary and final reports on it, following the second round run-off in December of 1999. Yes, they found some irregularities (ever hear of "Florida"?) but the elections were no more dishonest than previous ones in Macedonia. Trajkovski won by 53% to 46% and the result was certified. He is the legitimate President of Macedonia, no matter what you or the other losers may say. And he was perfectly at liberty to make election promises to any of the voter groups, just as Petkovski was at liberty to do -- and, in fact, did. You sound like a very sore loser, if I may say so.

Depending on when you date the start of Roman imperialism, the Roman Empire, in that sense, had a good long run of 600 years or so. I don't think we can reasonably expect more than that.

Nor did Rome's imperialism destroy all of value in that state's civilization. Much of what was of value survived the fall of the Roman Empire, and still lives today.

The alternative to our establishing imperial control over the Middle East is that we should become another Israel, constantly subject to terrorist attacks, and with far more serious limitations on our personal freedom than are now in view. Given the choice, I choose the former. Before 9/11, I would have favored a third choice of disengagement from the Middle East, in the hope that that would defuse the anger of the Islamic militants. But that's no longer a realistic option -- what before 9/11 might have been reasonable after 9/11 would be an abject surrender to terrorism, and would only encourage further such attacks.

I do appologise. I meant 1999. I was discussing the 1998 elections with some one here earlier today. :)

As you said 53% against 46%. The votes that tipped the balance were the Albanian votes. The promise that was made it was support for the Albanian dreams of Greated Albanian that would include the western part of the Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania.

I am sorry a president that promises support for terrorism with the final aim of destroying the country is NOT a legitimate president in my world.

There were a number of occasions in the 2001 war where a direct action of air support was requested by the front line troops on the border with Kosovo under attack by hundreds of members of the KLA and the Kosovo Protection Force (formed and trained by NATO). Trajkovski just refused.

He was a mediator in the conflict. He did not stand up as a president of the country and defended it. He mediated and at no time he was against the actions of the Albanian parties.

No. He is not a legitimate president in my world.

I am not a sore looser but a practical person. I judge countries actions and not their statements. I am one of those Macedonians that does not like IMRO or SDSM or any of the other political parties because they all work for their own pocket.

I know that in order to have a history of democracy the government of the day needs to change on a regular basis to avoid dictatorship of the cabinet and nepotism.

However in order to have a progressing democracy one needs at least 2 decades of peace, stability and sustanable procesperity.

What I see now, through the American foreign policy in Kosovo and the treatourous acts by the Macedonian president I still can not see a period of stability.

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.