FactsOfIsrael.com News, Comments and Links

<- Back to Main page

February 28, 2003
 Send to Printer    Link to this page
France will pay for its anti-American stance

The Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) has a good article on how France will pay for its current anti-American stance:

It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of France. France pretends to great-power status but hasn't had it in 50 years. It was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.

A half-century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441, which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American action for months.

Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain, where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Hussein to augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.

France is not doing this to contain Iraq -- France spent the entire 1990s weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain the United States. As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as the leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy. [...]

First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council -- with India and Japan as new permanent members -- to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic influence.

Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the war, should France change its mind, or after it. No peacekeeping. No oil contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try to mobilize the world against us.

Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the "coalition of the willing" now forming around us. No need to abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO's useful life. Like the United Nations, it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.

We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do: threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.

I still have family and friends in France who are shocked by this racist and intolerant society - with 15% voting for the Communist and Trotsky parties, over 20% voting for the fascist "National Front" of Le Pen, and over 10% of Muslims, it's no wonder France has become a country that ignores the burning of synagogues and supports the butcher from Baghdad.

France will pay. Found the link on Andrew Sullivan - I copy the full article below.

A Costly Charade At the U.N.
By Charles Krauthammer, Friday, February 28, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A14219-2003Feb27.html

America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution on Iraq.

The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the United Nations, it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea and Cameroon and Angola count.

For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their price will be lower than Turkey's, but, then again, Turkey is offering something tangible -- territory from which to launch a second front. Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.

The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of American soldiers to rid the world -- and the long-suffering Iraqi people -- of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.

It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of France. France pretends to great-power status but hasn't had it in 50 years. It was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.

A half-century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441, which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American action for months.

Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain, where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Hussein to augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.

France is not doing this to contain Iraq -- France spent the entire 1990s weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain the United States. As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as the leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.

That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United States on a matter of supreme national interest.

First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council -- with India and Japan as new permanent members -- to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic influence.

Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the war, should France change its mind, or after it. No peacekeeping. No oil contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try to mobilize the world against us.

Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the "coalition of the willing" now forming around us. No need to abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO's useful life. Like the United Nations, it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.

We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do: threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.

This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with German footnotes

Posted by David Melle at February 28, 2003 12:24 AM
Comments

this is unbelievable: "I still have family and friends in France who are shocked by this racist and intolerant society - with 15% voting for the Communist and Trotsky parties, over 20% voting for the fascist "National Front" of Le Pen, and over 10% of Muslims, it's no wonder France has become a country that burns synagogues and supports the butcher from Baghdad."

Posted by: lidefeng on February 28, 2003 12:56 AM

Hello,

To lidefeng
Vous pouvez consulter les résultats des élections en France au cours des dix dernières années.
But of course « society » is not « racist and intolerant ».

To David Melle
Que pensez vous du « prix Goebbels » décerné à Charles Enderlin ?

Posted by: anonyme on March 1, 2003 10:28 AM

Maybe I wrong, but I don't recall (history wise) the US rushing troops to Europe when either World War I or II broke out. Took a couple of years each time and a bit of a prompt didn't it?

Pre-empting responses ... yeah I know they tipped the balance that helped the Allies win the war.

Also because my American history is atrocious, out of interest can anyone summarise French Canada’s (?) role in the Civil War?

Cheers

Posted by: Beer Bloke on March 28, 2003 03:25 AM

Beer Bloke, there couldn't be a RUSH for the U.S. to send troops to war for WW1 or 2. Wny? First our government can mobilize quickly but there still was great hesitancy by the people back then to become embroiled in a foreign war. It got alot more sketchy after the Great Depression in the 30's but it took alot of forthought by the government of the U.S. to enter those wars. Remember the Leauge of Nations was also very shakey too and of course its inability to act would cause its destruction but still, policy dictated a slow approach to both gain suppport of the populace who were not to keen on getting involved in a foreign war and circumstances of the times. No popular support and you risk not having adequate forces and other social problems pertaining to mass dissention. I know that WWII would not have been joined if Pearl Harbor hadn't been the blow to action, though the war was a concern, the economy was just coming back into its own from the depression and military forces bolstered enough to be felt as effective. Do realize though that even though it took time for us to come to the battle we were sending the Brits weapons and other materials to sustain them.

Posted by: Alderroot on September 24, 2003 01:13 AM

France has the first Jewish population in Europe and you will be happy to find if one day you were expelled from your "god given" colony of Israel. So as we say in France do not spit in the soup. I am not antisemitic but a lot of Israelies seem to be anti-french just because France opposes the way Israel treats the Palestinians, France commited the same sort of crimes in Algeria 40 years ago and 4 million French settlers and Jews and to flee the country. France drew some lessons from that (hopefully, one day you too will understand.

Posted by: Juge on February 11, 2004 08:05 PM

I wrote the above message in a rush here is a corrected version of what I was trying to say:
France has the first Jewish population in Europe and you will be happy to find it if one day you were expelled from your "god given" colony of Israel.
So, as we say in France, do not spit in the soup. I am not antisemitic but a lot of Israelies seem to be anti-french just because France opposes the way Israel treats the Palestinians.
France in spite of being the nation that invented the human rights commited the same sort of crimes in Algeria 40 years ago and 4 million French settlers and Jews alike had to flee the country. France drew some lessons from that (hopefully)and one day you too will understand. Let us hope it won't be too late because for the last few years the extremists of both sides have been winning the game. I really hope that one day you can find forgiveness in your hearts and all live together if not as brothers at leat as neighbours like we do with the Germans and the English. I am atheist but I believe in forgiveness and peace, that is the only way, that is life against death and hope against despair.


Posted by: Mr Juge on February 14, 2004 12:47 PM
Post a comment 
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?



Email this entry
Email this entry to (please enter email address):


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Referrers to this Page

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains some copyrighted materials the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.




(According to digits.com)