WJC would have "managed" foreign policy better than GWB, but that is merely due to his management goals being undefined beyond the short term. "One year in Bosnia and out", the Haiti escapade, and how to get everyone mad at your CINC on Pristina's runway when the Russians decide to intervene were examples of this. But nobody but the Serbs ever miscontrued the fact that the US wasn't going to lunge for the jugular prior to Jan 2001. The only mistake the Serbs made is to not surrender before the war ever started. If they had gave Milosevich the shove prior to bombing, they'd still have Kosovo to call theirs, at least nominally, just as they still control Montenegro.

This lack of foreign policy long term objective eventually led to the current NK, Afghan, and Iraqi situations. You might disagree with Bush's remedies in these theatres, which the French certainly do, but the lack of international friction under WJC was simply a function of the US not representing its own long term interests and underwriting everyone else's protection policies with the local thugs. The fallacy was that we were not defending ourselves (USS Cole and the first WTC attack being prime examples). And what particularly is gaulling to the French is that ever since 9/11, Bush's foreign policy has been backed by substantial electoral majorities, unlike your cited French situation. Prior to 9/11, most US voters couldn't tell you the prime foundations of US policy, much as the French cannot today except in negative ideological terms. Today most US citizens can say why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they disagree. Bush cannot manage this political motivation behind US foreign policy after 9/11, any more than one "manages" sitting on a rodeo bull.

I am also indifferent to isolation or encouragement, as long as we withdraw the limits on granting the French green cards.

GG, a great analysis. I think that the core feature that cuts across all these issues is the self-contained elites that control both the corporations and government (usually to each other's benefit) and their desire to perpetuate and expand their power.

A.L.

AL,

I don't disagree, but I guess my larger point is that the French somehow conspire with themselves to be ruled by such elites. The real core feature is the citizen attitude towards the state as (blameless) provider and protector. (Much has been said about the enlightment transference from Christian God to Collectivist State and I think there's a lot of truth to that.) It's what binds the citizen like an automaton to the state bureacracy and also what gives rise to what's sometimes called the "Vichy Syndrome".

William Pfaff explained this pretty well in a 1998 International Herald Tribune op-ed about the Rwanda massacres and revelations of French complicity, entitled The Vichy Syndrome of Guilty Silence, first revealed in the Figaro newspaper:

Since publication, there has been an oppressive silence on the matter, broken only by a Foreign Ministry denial that arms had been supplied in violation of a UN arms embargo.

No other national newspaper, television chain or magazine has taken up the reports, or challenged them. There has been no editorial comment. There have been no manifestos by French intellectuals, usually prompt to protest violations of human rights, ready to march through the streets demanding justice.

Editors at Le Figaro say they are aware of no official or press reaction whatever, other than off-the-record official comments deploring the revival of 'an old story.'

This same pattern is seen in Alain Hertogue's recent criticism of French press coverage of the Iraq war that resulted in his being fired, widely published in the U.S. and British press (the French have still never heard of Alain Hertogue), as well as the slavish media and official passivity concerning the Executive Life affair, the Taiwan government bribes, and frankly almost everything else.

Pfaff called the Rwanda affair "disconcerting evidence of certain recurrent traits in the behavior of the French political class" and that's basically what you're saying. I think there's a flip side to it in the relationship of that elite bureacracy to the citizens at large.

But GG, if you all went to the same schools, dated and married each other, do business with each other, live in the same neighborhoods...

...it's harder to raise the kind of anti-authority challenges that are so much a part of US political culture. There's no 'creative destruction'.

A.L.

AL,

Another good (and complementary) point. France's anti-capitalist culture isn't really "anti-authority" since capitalism no longer really holds sway. In today's elections, I supported the UMP - Chirac's party...

Your description is a typical French way doing things, but I'm not sure that this was the modus operandi of France before Chirac took office or not. Remember, Chirac is the standard bearer of the Gaulist party, who always mistrusted the Americans and English. This could have been also part of Mitterrand's and Giscard's way of the world, but I think "Chi-Chi" has taken it to a new level.

What to do? I'd suggest we let them carry on as they wish and don't raise a hand to help them when their policies come home to roost.

The important thing is what Sean said. Never again raise a hand to help them. War, famine, plague, bad breath -- no help. NONE.

Having sold Iraqis into slavery in exchange for petrodollars, the French have proven that they are beyond redemption. Disturbing as it may be to contemplate, some conduct puts one beyond the circle of humanity - enslaving fellow human beings, condemning them to rape, torture and execution, all for a few pieces of silver, surely qualifies.

It only remains to determine how civilized nations should deal with this kind of offender. Perhaps in another time - a time when nations could play the great game and risk only a few deaths in far off places - one could use all the tools of statecraft to isolate and disarm the French threat. But that time has passed. Western civilization is now in a knife-fight with a deadly and determined foe.

If France seeks to align with Islamic fundamentalists and/or their Arab government backers - if it signs a separate peace with Arab fascists - as it looks likely to do, the US and its allies must begin to think hard thoughts, to ask what will be required to defeat France. In this regard, I would expect Western leaders to contemplate even the nastiest of tricks to counter French perfidy - sabotage, false flag operations, diplomatic deception, espionage, political subversion, etc.

Once it is admitted that (1) the West is in a fight to the death against Arab Islamic fascism and (2) France has allied itself with fascists, there is no alternative but to oppose both fascists and France.

It's pretty simple. France is an enemy of the United States. They, along with the socialists in Germany, are conspiring to turn the EU into an anti-American bloc. These elites want nothing more than to oppress American citizens and kill them until their fight is broken.

Who will stand up to them?

Excellent analysis. You have to go a bit further back in French history to get the cause I think. This attitude on the part of the French people isn't the least bit new. What you're seeing is the divide between the nobility and the serfs.

My grandfather once told me that the only thing you need to know about history is that every country is only afraid of their own history, not anyone else's. The French (and the Germans to a lesser degree) are afraid of political anarchy more than anything, dating back to the collapse of the Roman Empire. France as a modern nation didn't really take form until relatively recently and most of the history of France is full of constant warfare, largely with their English cousins/competitors. Rampaging feudal armies running back and forth tend to leave an imprint on a national psyche.

I think Americans (and the English who really should know better) don't understand the French because we don't share their 'social contract'. Our 'social contract' is pretty much spelled out in the Constitution. Government gets to do what we allow it to, and no more. And we get to decide what the 'government' is too.

The French social contract is more of a generally understood abstract than anything else. The nobility, ruling elite, government, or whoever is in charge may do whatever they like, indeed is EXPECTED to do whatever they like as long as they meet certain baselines of domestic security and economic well-being.

This is why the French goverment feels free to meddle disastrously in Africa, but is scared spitless to so much as criticize the unions. They understand the lessons of the French revolution well. Foreign adventures are well and good, but when social order breaks down and the economy crashes, they'll be lucky to escape with their heads.

A lot of their more inexplicable actions make more sense in this view. The governments gotten themselves into a bind, they need to undo some of the economic goodies they gave away when the economy was roaring but are afraid of crossing that unwritten social contract. So they play a balancing game, trying also from time to time to distract the populace with foreign events. The hijab ban for example is an attempt to reassure the general populace that muslims won't be allowed to take over the country without actually doing anything that might kick off insurrections that might convince the populace they aren't providing domestic security.

Really the government is only concerned with - A) enriching themselves and B) hanging on to power. The classic obsessions of nobility throughout history.

Very good analysis. You are right about the passive support of the citizenry. They do look to the government as their protector.

A lot of this stems from France's peculiar desire to be a star in the Muslim world. Partly, of course, it's Algeria; but they are also, I believe, seeking hegemony over Muslim countries. Or something. This is all part of a plan being played out - and that the Americans and the Brits went ahead with the war against Saddam caused a temporary glitch - but I'm damned if I can figure out what the point of this plan is.

Color me unsurprised that the French are siding with evil terrorists, again.

I'm expecting some sympathetic bios of this Hamas leader in AFP soon.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=5837

France condemns Israeli killing of Hamas leader

Falklands Conflict - France seeling missiles and planes to the Agentines to attack UK forces with..

Don't forgot that one either...

Worry not about France. Its fate is sealed. It will be a de facto Muslim state within 50 years and a de jure Muslim nation by the end of the century. I regret that I will not be around long enough to enjoy the sight of the remaining elderly French cowering in their un-air-conditioned flats while Muslims convert Notre Dame to a mosque. Gloating is so refreshing!

Dave:
I agree with you that France's fate is sealed- but what will the Muslims be getting? Whatever they get, I doubt it will be a highly productive economy. The nukes could be a problem, but perhaps enlightened French citizens will sell them before the takeover.

Regarding the final question of what we should do about France, the answer is not political or diplomatic but rather economic. As pointed out, the French economic house-of-cards is damned near collapse, and a lot of what the French government has been doing is oriented around delaying that collapse. With the new reality in the world, a lot of what was previously being used to prop up that house is now gone (e.g. the "oil for food program") and I don't think they can keep it together any longer.

The French government deficit (4.1% and still rising), indirect effects of the strong Euro, and the fundamental unsoundness of the French economy all bode ill. The party will end quite soon.

The people of France are apathetic and effete, but they will cease being apathetic once they begin to feel pain. What that will lead to is anyone's guess -- but it will mean the end of the existing order.

What de Gaulle really meant to say: "France has no friends, only interests".

The original "Countries have no friends, only interests". is often referred to by French debaters as if it were universally true and unquestioned, instead of the guilty rationalization for turning on the US after all we had done that it was, and is.

Hey Frenchees

Hey Frenchees !
Take the Eifel Tower and your cheesee political idios and put it where the sun does'nt shine

"Nations have no permanent friends and no premanent enemies. Only permanent interests." Not from de Gaulle, but Benjamin Disraeli, 19th Century British Prime Minister.

Steven Den Beste: The U.S. economic house of cards is closer to collapse than the French. The U.S. deficit is higher than the French - per year and total (as a percentage of G.D.P.). On top of that the American savings rate is abysmal, while the French people still know the value of savings. (Still like your site!)

With that said, agree with a fair amount of the post. I think Taiwan-Israel is fairly similar. Once there was more to gain for France by turning against either, it did it. Moral considerations were not a factor.

Also left out in the post: the contracts that France is currently signing with Iran.

Still just because France is wrong doesn't make the Bush Administration right. For me Germany is the pivot country. Right now Germany is more in France's camp; if (when?) it swings back to the U.S. side, I'll be much happier.

Maybe he didn't say it, but the saying never seems to be far from the minds of the French in my experience. Ironic that it orignated from a country that has touted its "special relationship" with the US for a long time. But, that's what I get for taking a Frenchman at his word. Actually two separate Frenchmen attributed that quote to de Gaulle, must be a French urban legend. I still say that my formulation is the more accurate one.

As for the collapse of the house of cards. Where is the economic growth in France that will let them pay back even a smaller borrowing? France needed that 100 billion to keep their house of cards afloat.

We are at war, war is expensive in the short run, cheaper in the long run, if the cause is just. France is "at appeasment", which is cheaper in the short run, and more expensive in the long run, viz 20th century.

The U.S. economic house of cards is closer to collapse than the French

That's delusional. Three problems: Demography, assimilation, institutional/cultural capacity for economic reform.

Still just because France is wrong doesn't make the Bush Administration right.

Absolutely. The post has nothing to do with the Bush administration per se.

For me Germany is the pivot country.

Good point. We expect Germany to act as a Northern European/Protestant country (ie, a country with "leadership"). We should logically have "picked up" Germany with the loss of Spain (or Italy) and a German swing towards the Atlanticists would help to isolate France.

"That's delusional. Three problems: Demography, assimilation, institutional/cultural capacity for economic reform."

France has the highest or near-highest birthrate in Europe, almost at replacement if not there. (They're breeding like rabbits where I work.) It's gonnna take a long time before the French disappear.

Assimilation? I'm not sure whether you mean that there's too much or too little. The U.S. gave up on the melting pot around 1970. The French haven't yet and still believe in assimilation.

Economic reform? Yeah ok, but again the same could be said of the U.S. Every country has its own problems and its own inefficiencies. France has unions, the U.S. has lawyers. etc.

"The French haven't yet and still believe in assimilation."

Yeah, ok, what about the Muslim suburbs? What is the unemployment rate among French Muslims?

"Every country has its own problems and its own inefficiencies."

The severity of those problems should show up in the numbers. Have a look at GDP growth if you will.

"What to do? I'd suggest we let them carry on as they wish and don't raise a hand to help them when their policies come home to roost."
(Posted by: Sean)

How about a simple pronouncement that we no longer consider ourselves bound by Article V of the NATO treaty as regards an attack on France? The French naval maneuvers with Mainland China could have been used as the "straw that broke the camel's back".

If you want to do something about the French public's indiffernce to how their foreign policy is formed, seems to me some form of "shock treatment" is called for.

I agree with everything in the article. I think the problem in the US, at moment, is that they still don't see France as an enemy. They just see it a troubled ally who wants to be heard and hate to be ignored. US is currently adopting a policy of trying to isolate France. This won't succeed with Germany being so close to France. Instead of trying to isolate France, they should purposively attack and undermine France at everystep. Condemn every foreign policy France makes. US should stop being diplomatic to France and playing nice

Germany and France is trying to form EU into an anti-US block with all the serious consequences that will follow as a result. Look at Kyoto treaty, look at World court. All these ideas were formulated to attack and embarrass and weaken the US. When other countries e.g Russia China etc don't agree with it, ppl just give it a shrug, but ppl continously condemn US for not agreeing with it

suggest ppl go to www.thetrumpet.com Its a christian magazine on the web that goes indepth regarding international politics and future prophecies esp on France. They've been talking about France betraying US, work with Germany to form EU. Germany will eventually take over and we'll see another World War in the future. UK will either be kicked our or leave EU in the future too

France has the highest or near-highest birthrate in Europe, almost at replacement if not there. (They're breeding like rabbits where I work.)

How much of that breeding is composed of the unassimulated Muslim minority, being house in the ghetto on the Government dime?
Enough to almost replace the heat wave, and other victims, of French socialised medicine.
America is drawing the best and brightest of French innovators, due to the R&D money available here.

So to sum up; Demography, assimilation, institutional/cultural capacity for economic reform. Yep, covered them all.

I think a proactive approach in the French African interventions would pay much bigger dividends then our Middle East adventures.
Better for our world wide Prestige. Better for the sting imparted to the French

Andrew,

We don't inhabit the same country and perhaps not even the same planet.

I will grant you that the demographic numbers are slightly less catastrophic in France than in Europe generally and that France has made considerable strides in race/immigrant relations, which nevertheless remain appalling, even though I'd like to remain hopeful.

France still faces severe structural problems - particularly the ratio of active/inactive population (falling to 1.5/1 by 2020), lack of real labor productivity, and fast enough assimilation of marginalized immigrant/ethnic minorities. These are complex questions that could fill up a number of posts on this site.

I don't think that these severe problems are inherently unsolvable. The main problem is one of institutional and cultural attitudes. Europe as a whole is going to decline, but France is at risk of going down in flames because of its historical institutional and social instability (think: revolutionary traditions). The rise of the National Front and attraction of such revolutionary fantasies as the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, Lutte Ouvrière and Bovéiste/Chevenementiste nationalist nostalgia are a sign of this. And the real problems haven't even begun.

What's equally troubling is the coopting of both movements by the "mainstream" parties in the collective flight from reality, captured perfectly by the way in today's op-ed in the Figaro (in French) by the extremely well-known Gaullist Alain-Gérard Slama rejecting what he calls "a scourge, the rise of the radical center", ie, centrist third-way pragmatism "L'extrême centre est de retour" ("The Radical Center Is Back"). Basically, for the non-French-speakers here, his theme is that the centrist voices decrying the polarization of politics and wishing to go beyond a left/right paradigm are dangerous extremists who wish to flee normal politics and we should all go back to business as usual. (I am not making this up.)

In the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election, the main voter issues were the budget deficit and social security in a country with an active/inactive ratio of 3 to 1. Today in France with a 2 to 1 ratio, the unions are in the streets protesting the most timid and inadequate pension reforms, and the supposedly democratic government functions with the constant threat of mass protest. Worse still, they have the support of half the population who are basically saying, without knowing it, "Let my kids pay for their early retirement!".

Bottom line: Your average American gas station attendant has a better sense of economics than your average French PhD.

I don't want to wish a pox on anyone's house. But why encourage them?

Gabriel Gonzalez has some excellent points regarding the fundamental issues that plague France and its society. I have some others to add.

One is the Cadre system. This basically ensures that if you haven’t spent five years in university then you will not pass a certain glass ceiling, be it management, technical or political.

The other is the adherence to laws : smoking in non-smoking places and the driving habits of the average Frenchman are the most remarked on. The ways that companies stretch the law in order to actually produce anything is another that shocks me daily. There are other examples.

The bureaucracy is incredible and is now in a self sustaining stage – one couldn’t get rid of a certain government department since it has made itself necessary for some medical or social payments process to work.

The power of unions. I’m not sure if there have been any other democratic nation where the same unions are represented in all industries. As far as I understand, there is no auto-workers union, no coal miners union, no steel workers union. These workers join either the CGT, CFDT or other cross industry, cross sector unions. They are everywhere. How their members think that they can look after the interests of everyone in all industries is beyond me.

These four points (among others, including history, population structure etc) make the French socio-economic system stagnant with no possibility to improve.

I have some ideas but my colleagues don’t want an American-type society. They want the generous holidays, they want the socialised medicine, they don’t seem to mind that the Police and politicians are corrupt (C’est la vie), they don’t like the big bosses (although all would like to be one).

I don’t know what the answers are to solving ‘The French Problems’ but one thing is for sure. With more countries about to join the EU in May, and other countries wanting to join, the inefficiencies of France will only be put off, while new members are forced to put in place the same laws that are now hobbling France, Germany and to some extent the UK. France will be able to hide itself in amongst 25? other nations who will be forced to trade with it.

So French politicians are occasionally corrupt and France's foreign policy is largely dictated by business interests. So what? I bet that you could find similar examples to the ones you list for the US or every other major country. Why are human rights violations in China not condemned more fiercely by the Western world (including the US)? Because China is the most populous country in the world and nobody wants to lose that market.

The only difference is that France seems to be a bit more upfront about their motives than the US where economic motives are frequently hidden behind a lot of rhetoric about freedom, democracy, fighting evil and so on.

Matt, you've got France's EU policy objectives down cold, first try. Kudos.

Cora either hasn't read this article, hasn't understood it, or hasn't been paying attention.

The decoupling of foreign policy from public oversight is deep and multi-leveled, as the examples Gabriel brings forward clearly show. Similar examples are NOT thinkiable in the USA (or my country, Canada):

"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 [jk: $760 million worth) to negotiate protection from criminal prosecution for Chirac's personal friend, the billionaire François Pinault."

Could not happen like that. Not if done by a Republican. Not if done by a Democrat. Couldn't even happen here in Canada's incestuous political culture. If the concept of public oversight means anything to you at all, that has to make you pause... because lack of oversight to that extreme extent is dangerous.

"I bet that you could find similar examples to the ones you list for the US or every other major country."

Really? Do you recall reading this?

"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."

In France, these things have all transpired without a ripple of protest or question. And you don't find that problematic or remarkable. Just imagine the USA backing the Hutu genocide in Rwanda - and no protests, no serious questions raised, no political issue. Could. Not. Happen. As the saying goes, kiddo, you aren't in Kansas any more. A guy who has lived in both countries for a considerable amount of time is trying to explain this to you - and you just don't want to listen.

"LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you! America is bad, Bush lied, America is worse."

Which kind of sums up large portions of the Left's responses to serious challenge these days.

And that's too bad, because by passing this off as a casual matter - and even PRAISING these actrions for their "honesty" - you give all the actions Gabriel mentions a pass. Indeed, you've just gone beyond excuses, and even praised complicity in genocide as "upfront motives."

Read your comment again, and yes, that IS what you've done.

Besides give a textbook demonstration of the selective cynicism and moral bankruptcy afflicting significant portions of the Left these days, that is. For which I do sincerely thank you. So much easier when one's opponents cooperate like that.

Someone mentioned throwing the french out of NATO. Actually, the french are planning on setting up a european defense organization. There is a sort of non-compete clause in the NATO charter that states: 'no member shall enter into another defense treaty that could in any way interfere with it's NATO obligations'. The day after the french formalize their new defense organization they should be shown the door at NATO. They might take germany, belgium, and some others with them, but many would stay. The poles, czechs, lithuanians, and others remember quite vividly how things were when they put their trust in treaties made with germany, france, and russia before. With france out of NATO, and with central europe's help; the anglo-americans could then pusue a policy of containment against france until she is no longer capable of maliciously creating chaos around the world. I look forward to the day when france is forced to give up her weapons of mass distruction and submit to democratic reforms under threat of anglo-american occupation, just like their buddy Saddam. Then we people who fled the insanity and hopelessness of european socialism can return.

"Still just because France is wrong doesn't make the Bush Administration right."

Well, there is the following from the original post, and it does have implications about options that first need to be assessed, followed by some choice, an executive decision, taken in the real world, not just the world of supposedly wonderful ideas:

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.

Debate all you want the U.S. option taken of essentially a forward positioning in the M.E. following on the heals of Afghanistan. But if the only option suggested (whether consciously or by default) is one that refers back to the previous status quo (as the French option does), then that doesn't suggest very much that attempts to craft a stable, long term future. Unless, of course, one feels that the significant enemy is in fact limited to al Queda and little or nothing beyond that. I doubt that many would accept that premise though.

Unless, of course, one feels that the significant enemy is in fact limited to al Queda and little or nothing beyond that. I doubt that many would accept that premise though.

Well, the other option (and often corollary premise) is that the real enemy is the United States. And at some level - and one hopes it runs not much deeper than surface ego - this is one of the crutches holding up much of the French worldview.

Well, the other option (and often corollary premise) is that the real enemy is the United States.

Yes, that is the other option and as such it reflects the fundamental civilizational questions being raised - and demanding answers. What dice are to be rolled? What Rubicons are to be crossed? (Give me a minute before I wax worldly wise and grandiloquent in answering those questions.)

All in all an extremely valuable, informative and intriguing analysis imo, I appreciate the entirety of it though thought it weakened slightly at the very end, and at least tentatively I like the very first post, by Tom Roberts, as a corrective for that aspect of it.

"the real enemy is the United States. And at some level - and one hopes it runs not much deeper than surface ego - this is one of the crutches holding up much of the French worldview."

How can you hope it is no more than skin deep and say:

"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."

It is exactly the issue of power going from the bottom up versus the top down that distinguishes the Anglosphere from the French and has since the resolution of the 17th century religious wars. The culture of the Anglosphere is today, due to its incredible world wide success relative to the French over the last 400 years, the greatest threat to the French worldview and to French culture. They know they have not cannot resist it themselves. The threat from the middle east is much more conventional and can be dealt with as have all the other external threats since the end of the Roman empire.

America should assume that the French see them as the greater enemy because they are.

The citation of Disraeli for permanent...interests didn't seem quite right to me so I Googled permanent friends permanent interests with Disraeli for 2850 hits and with Palmerston for 3560. Looks like victory having a thousand fathers.

Nice work. I am particulary interested in French "involvement" in Francophone Africa post-independance. It is absolutely unbelievable that France is regarded in the developed world as their protector. Yes, the US has bases all over the world, but they pay large sums in rent and are spat at for the priveledge.

By contrast, the French have established garrisons right in the airports of most of their former colonies in Africa, with all the intimidation that this implies. Domination of the host countries, infestation by tens of thousands of transplanted, elitist expats and you have a thoroughly unenjoyable experience, unless you're French.

" bet that you could find similar examples to the ones you list for the US or every other major country. "

This has been responded to effectively already, but I would like to add one more point. The original post has provided examples regarding France. If you would like to make a counter argument, perhaps you could provide the "similar examples"? Or is doing the work of backing up your arguments too taxing?

This is a good article and i'm saying that as a French person who's lived in Australia for many years(but who still often goes back to France where I have close family.)
However I think you have to understand that there are lots of French people who despise the Govt for what it's done; that France, since the Revolution, has laboured under the twin deadly traditions of absolutist statist authoritarianism on the one hand and revolutionary insurectionism on the other; that the French governing class despise, fear and mistrust their people, and that they give no possibility of actual useful democratic participation. France is a republican absolute monarchy. The anti-Us stuff is also a useful way to divert the population's attention from the massive problems of corruption of the govt not only in terms of Iraq but in terms of the whole shebang--some people even call the state now 'la republique mafieuse', the mafiosos' republic. Something's going to give one of these days in France, and it's not going to be pretty. But there are many people--Guy Milliere, Andre Glucksmann, Alain Madelin, and many, many more, who understand precisely and who are attempting to argue against the rotten administration of M.Chirac. Don't condemn everyone, it's not fair, and it doesn't give any hope to those trying to change things.
Incidentally many young people feel very close to the US and hate the whole anti-American thing. Generational change may work wonders!

Sophie, I hope you're right.

Just found this site a few days ago. Very good, folks. Some of the most civil discussion out there.

Interesting article. Do you think that your point about the people passively allowing the government to pursue foreign policy applies to other European nations? This would explain what to me has been somewhat baffling. That is, the virtual unanimity of opinion in some countries that the war in Iraq was wrong--reported at upwards of 90% in some countries. Here in the US it is virtually impossible to get anywhere near that level of unanimity on anything.

Suppose Chirac had made the decision to support the war; do you think he would have had such uniformity of support?

GG: The rise of the National Front and attraction of such revolutionary fantasies as the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, Lutte Ouvrière and Bovéiste/Chevenementiste nationalist nostalgia are a sign of this. And the real problems haven't even begun.

Extremists with whom you share the same apocalyptic rhetoric. At right (National Front), their horizon is a national transcendence, at left a socialist trans-national human being purity. And you succeed in merging and darkening both horizons.

The US of A is in serious economic trouble.

Here is how we handle the problem:

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/narcoDollars.pdf

or the html version which starts here:

http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco1.shtm

France's 100 bn over 7 or 8 years is nothing. Bupkiss.

America is doing three, five, ten times as much every year.

You will know the economic war is real when countries begin covering the dark side of the drug war corruption. I am amazed that every one involved still thinks the game is worth it. For the US of A it is critical to their economic health. Hell even North Korea is allowed to play if they keep their mouths shut.

What I look for is a country whose costs to play the game exceed the profits both economic and social.

I'm of two minds about this. I hate the drug war. American economic collapse would bring chaos to the world. What tips the scale for me is the social cost. The American gulag.

Gabriel Gonzalez,

dit moi.... si je ne me trompe pas.... Au vues de ton nom de famille (Colombien? Argentin?), la France est pour toi un "pays d'accueil"... A voir la facon dont tu t'exprimes, je crois meme pouvoir dire un pays ou tu as fait tes etudes... Si tu aimes autant les etats unis et que tu detestes autant la France... pourquoi ne demenage tu pas???....

Me. Speak. No. Surrender-Monkey.

Regarding the brave French sinking of the unarmed Greenpeace ship and murder of the Dutch photographer aboard at the time....

As I recall the French then used their power over EU import restrictions to threaten a significant part of NZ's trade, forcing the NZ government to hand over the murderers for some seriously hard time at a French resort island (what am I saying, it was hard, they were in custody on that beach the poor things).

And remember, the NZ authorities caught them really quickly because they exercised their French cultural right to be typically incompetent and arrogant. They weren't even good terrorists.
Actually, if you think back to the soft nature of the target, you can see why the French find it so easy to empathise with the Palistinian death cult murderers.

Si tu aimes autant les etats unis et que tu detestes autant la France... pourquoi ne demenage tu pas?

Je ne sais pas si la question se veut neutre, mais disons simplement que je m'oppose à une politique qui est désastreuse, pour les états-unis, mais également pour la France, tous deux des "pays d'accueil", certes, mais qui sont devenus mes pays à moi.

D'ailleurs, les Etats-Unis ne souffrent pas d'une absence de critique ni en France ni aux EU, la France si, la thèse même de mon article. Ce serait de la lâcheté que de fuir devant mon devoir de citoyen, n'est-ce pas ?

How does French people look like today? (Emile Louis, serial killer) -- I know what I'm talking about. I live in France. It's my neighbourhood. And I’m an objective observer with a great sense of purity and a PhD in comparative political moral.

Lady Marianne,

my wife, granted political refugee status when 3 year old, fleeing Cambodia, now officialy French for more than a decade, also criticizes much France.

Should she leave the country and lose her French passport because of that ? I guess she can already apply for political asylum in the USA then. I'll follow.

If the gov. of USA would just open the gates of immigration to us, I'm pretty sure we'd be followed by a crowd.

Now compare these words:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
(Statue of Liberty)
to
"La France ne peut pas acceuillir toute la misère du monde"
(French Socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard 1989: France can not host all the world's misery)

Constitution Française, article 4 : Tout homme persécuté en raison de son action en faveur de la liberté a droit d'asile sur les territoires de la République.

Remi,
By Aritcle 4:
It' sounds like George W. Bush qualifies for asylum in France. Rumsfeld too.

Wait a minute! What if it's the French doing the persecuting?

Send them both to France and they will find both asylum and persecutors. But generally, asylum is granted to people who fought for liberty without established WMD.

The constitution mentions WMD? That's quite prescient! ;-)

Remi, I'm impressed; that's the first time I've heard "Love It Or Leave It" in French...

A.L.

Lurker, You got it! Finally. Since prosecutions against Bush would arise from non-political crimes, that wouldn’t be covered by this article of French constitution, neither by the equivalent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
AL. – For me, it’s rather a sort of “Hate it, stay and suffer, if it’s your fantasy”.

Actually, Remi, that's not what you said:

...for those who haven't spent time in the 17th, here's her quote and rough translation (I haven't lived in France for 25 years, so it may be a bit rough):

dit moi.... si je ne me trompe pas.... Au vues de ton nom de famille (Colombien? Argentin?), la France est pour toi un "pays d'accueil"... A voir la facon dont tu t'exprimes, je crois meme pouvoir dire un pays ou tu as fait tes etudes... Si tu aimes autant les etats unis et que tu detestes autant la France... pourquoi ne demenage tu pas???....

Tell me ... if I'm not wrong ... Looking at your last name (Columbian? Argentine?), you're an immigrant to France. As you explain it, can I say that you studied here?

If you like the U.S. and detest France...why don't you move?

So here we've got a twofer - you challenge him because he's apparently non-French and then invite him to leave.

Classy, non?

FYI, my first wife was French (she's immigrated to the US); her three sisters (respectively) work for the UN in Geneva, run a creche in Paris, and play in the Orchestre Nationaux de Paris. Her dad was a General and a board member at one of the three largest French corporations during the 70's. We lived in Paris and Versailles for maybe three years of the twelve we were together.

In Paris, we lived above Kawasaki Etoile on Ave Gde Armee.

I just thought your challenge to Gabriel was cheap, and wanted to make sure that the non-French-speaking audience got to read it and decide for themselves.

A.L.

No. A so-called “Lady Marianne” wrote the text you translated appropriately, not me. I’m just the one who is amazed/disgusted with the tone of this article and commentators. Such paranoiac and out of place arguments just missed their target (on which a lot has to be said, of course). How can I say that? like a war on terror shifting to a war against Iraq? I do some business oversees (from France). I meet expats, Americans in Paris and French in Africa. Some of them have the same bias as Gabriel, always comparing local with their native rules. What they know is always better that what they don’t understand. And, yes sometime upset like Lady Marianne, I say to one of my French fellow: rentre chez toi (go home!)

Remi, my apologies.

A.L.

Sophie - Don't condemn everyone, it's not fair, and it doesn't give any hope to those trying to change things.

We have to hold the French people accountable for the despicable, corrupt leaders they have elected. We know there are many good French people and we hope they will be able to change things.

Remi -

While apologizing for mistaking you for Lady Marianne, I will suggest that your argument that, in essence, no one can judge the French because "What they know is always better that what they don’t understand." And one can't understand a culture from the outside?

A.L.

The reason the French act the way they do is simple. They are selfish. They have proven consistently that they have no moral or ethical values. Moreover, they have self determined their course. They have decided to place their own selfish ambitions above fundamental human rights. They have chosen a socialist country completely devoid of religion and fundamental ethical truths. They have chose to die rather than to live.

People on this thread will want to check this TechCentralStation column out:

Why Do They Hate Us?

By Ilya Shapiro

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032304A.html

"In the end, anti-Americanism boils down to the timeless disgust with America's daring to export its idea of liberty to the four corners of the globe. Whether via gunboat diplomacy, realpolitik, humanitarian intervention, or the current blend of preemptive strikes and trade liberalization -- despite intermittent rollbacks at the behest of groaning industrial-age unions and its John Edwards demagogues -- it is anathema to the Old World mind (and its Rousseauean influence in the New World) that a nation would choose to pursue other than parochial mercantilist interests. This is why French companies violated the sanctions against post-Gulf War Iraq while the chattering class decried the Yankee drive to trade blood for oil. It is why Vladimir Putin is a supposedly faithful partner in the war against Islamic terrorism while selling nuclear reactors to Iran. And it is the reason that, unfortunately, Europeans consider the United States to be the second-most dangerous country in the world -- second only to the sole democracy in the Middle East

To oversimplify the point, Europeans (like New Yorkers) are cynical, and cannot comprehend the "shining city upon a hill." They can't help it; their Enlightenment was essentially French and positivistic, rather than Scottish and natural law-oriented. Still, it is amusing to observe the simultaneous attacks on America from what roughly corresponds to the political left and right, for being an insufficient promoter of "social justice" while reveling too much in proletarian culture. Such is the paradox of this irrational anti-Americanism."

Rémi,

I am arguing that in France citizen attitudes of cynicism, moral indifference, pyschological identification and complicity uniquely enable its morally questionable foreign policies. Why don't you raise a substantive objection, rather than prove my point by way of self-caricature?

AL,

I think you did misidentify Rémi, but with the help he's giving you, it really doesn't matter.

I can't find the exact quote, but was reading John Adams' bio during the "rush to war."

What he said about the French showed me they haven't changed in 200 years.

The problem for Lady Marianne and Remi is we have your number because we have your history.

Gabriel's France is the France I have known for over 30 years now, though I no longer live there.

Little has changed over this period. Remember that the history of France's participation in NATO from the beginning was one long series of attempts to break it up.

NATO is currently in abeyance, awaiting a defining event which will cause Germany and others to choose sides. France will not choose our side unless it's elite is at that moment desperately afraid, and even if they do come over to our side it will be for a brief period only.

France's governing 'elite' ('tribe' or 'clan' are probably better terms) is indeed the natural successor to the nobles who were overtaken by the revolution. One hopes that this lot won't leave the place in the absolute bloody mess the nobility did in 1789 when they partied themselves and the country off a cliff, but it's not looking good.

A.L. -- I will suggest that your argument that, in essence, no one can judge the French because "What they know is always better that what they don’t understand." And one can't understand a culture from the outside?

Sorry, if I’m not clear. It’s not what I’m saying. I point out an attitude of constant depreciation of your host country. Let’s take the example of an imaginary U.S guy who works in France. He sees a different society, with a lot of common values with U.S. culture, but also with noticeable differences. The required effort to understand the French culture is not far of reach for him, like if he were living in Japan or Egypt. From each difference he notices, he concludes it’s better at home. - Hundred of different cheeses in France : what a waste of time. What lazy people. – More than two politic parties, it’s not democracy but extremisms. And so one. The conclusions of course being that those people who can act so strangely are corrupted and morally failed.

No Gabriel, you’re not arguing, you’re preaching. I won’t defend France foreign policy as a whole, since I don’t agree with! When you stigmatize “a country whose policies are deeply and irremediably immoral as well as hugely destabilizing of the global order”, what do you have in mind? France, really? And do you think world would be a safer place when conducting your project of France containment “through engagement or through isolation?”

Uh Rémi, We tried to "engage" France and what we got in return was Chirac bullying his weaker neighbors and telling the U.N. he would veto anything proposed by the U.S.

2 things:

1. Armed Liberal, thanks for the translation of "Lady Marianne's" droolings, but we can get the gist from Google language tools (gotta luv the innernut)

2. A bit late to get into it, but I don't want Andrew Boucher's comment (March 22, 2004 07:57 PM) about the US economy go by without comment.

To repeat it here:

"The U.S. deficit is higher than the French - per year and total (as a percentage of G.D.P.). "

Although Andrew doesn't specify which deficit he is referring to, the "as a percentage of G.D.P" bit suggests he means the total public debt.

For the record, here are the 2002 numbers for various nations, according to the Economist:

Public debt (% of GDP)

US: 60.25
France: 66.1
Germany: 61.3
Canada: 81.2
Britain: 50.39
Japan: 145.9

Surprised ?

http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data

(In the above URL, substitute the above country names for "USA" to see their data)

A little off topic in this comment, maybe not. I am of Acadien(Canadien French) decent and a native of South Louisiana(Lafayette). From my personal experiences in Europe and specifically in France, and because of my local culture, I was always proud of my french heritage. I visited my fathers grave in Normandy while living in Europe and the Norman people treated me with great respect and honor. I still correspond with some of these people and they are totally despondent over their governments actions concerning the United States. I have always been proud of my fathers part in the liberation of France. I believe that many french citizens are proud friends of America. Unfortunately we have to deal with the french government and their backstabbing ways. We in South Louisiana are proud of General Lafayettes contribution to the independence of the U.S. I can never forget that. Apparently Mr. Chirac and his cronies have forgotten what the United States did for France. I have a son in Iraq. I can no longer consider this french government a friend of the United States.

Response to Tom Roberts, the author of the second post on this board.

Actually, the US Government should devise a special program where all the French citizens who disagree with their current government would be granted conditional green cards upon completing an application process where their opinions and good moral character would be examined. This would result in a humongous number of applications on the part of the large number of fine Frenchmen who disagree with the immoral and frankly disgusting policies of their government. There should be a requirement that both parents of those who apply be native-born French citizens. This would weed out any potential 2nd generation disenfranchised French citizens of Arab decent (Moussaoui ring a bell??) from using the program as a way to come to America. (All French citizens are now exempt from obtaining a visa to come to the US for a short visit anyways. Google "Visa Waiver Program" for more info).
This mass migration would be the biggest embarassment for the French government and would net the US the only intelligent French who would work passionately to reverse their government's position and would become the spokepersons of the American point of view in their morally desolate land.... Utopian?? Maybe. A nice dream anyways...

Waste no more time and energy on this failed state of france. Neither the US nor Western civilization has the time to slow down it's own progress, nor to waste one more drop of it's young men and woman, to nurse this pitiful nation back to health, once again. Let it rot as is, let it dry up, sweep it away, and let the new trees grow. There is indeed no redemption for what france has done for 30+ years.
One shouldn't even consider a damn thing that would bring even one more frenchman to the US soil. Any one who arrive in the US and possesed a thought process similiar to france's greatest hero bovet would promptly have the hell beaten out of them.
Green cards being issued to any frenchman by the US is insane concept at a time when the country of france needs to be fully quarantined to prevent the intellectual decay and moral cancer that has attached itself to the roots of the culture from leaving that society.
The US govt would be doing it's citizens great favor by severing all ties with this pitiful country whose function is nothing but a systemic tumor on western european thought and success potential. The US doesn't need this disease.
Put the concept of a green card proposal to the US citizens and they'll vote against it 300,000,000 to 1.

>but I think Clinton might have managed this better than Bush.

It's interesting that you suggest that a morally bankrupt scoundrel would be better at managing morally bankrupt scoundrels than the Bush admin.

>but I think Clinton might have managed this better than Bush.

It's interesting that you suggest that a morally bankrupt scoundrel would be better at managing morally bankrupt scoundrels than the Bush admin.

I can't believe what i say there.
No, noone in france want to kill american people.
You're so pity, damn, we're not just motherfuker...

"triangulating against the U.S. to promote its commercial and strategic interests"

ha ha ha ah ah , lol, poor fools, the french just sh1t on yours heads, and mr Timmerman is from a jews extrem right corp called AEI, this one is ruling white house today!

as in Rwanda, that was the USA who blocked the french ask for intervention! i mean compared to the USA and thier brit lackeys, the french look like angels!

"France spent much time courting much of the Arab/Muslim world (Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco), "

lol, France is close to middle east country for centuries! and this will not hide the american shamefull colonial oil mongers in iraq!

so if the french aresyours enemies "as the jews scetarians corp would make beleive you" it's times to make a war against them!!
after the bashing , the boycott,etc... that don't worked USA is unpowerfull against big boys as france!

"(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."

ha ha ha ha ha ha the first bribing arms sailor is bashing france , oh oh oh , ridiculous!

iraq is 156 billions dollars bush bribery, Saddam was held by CIA to take power, and the nuke minus french plant couldn't get any nuke head to irak, AIEA was aware of that,when they allowed it, and France too!

Bush is just coming in france to sniff the Chirac shoozeees! ha ha ha!
the guys who gave you your freedom ares still a democraty and don't worry, next time you want to invade another country as nazis creeep, it will be modern and trained soldiers on your roads, not tribes and fews "ak 47"!

now you hate the french because they kicked yours @ss everywhere in the planet!
they shown to the world how you deeply ares!

a bunch of parasites whom we need to anihlate!

oops, i hope the irakies will fight and kill alot US soldiers, is great to see it at TV, anyway, they ares just making thier revolution!

Ah ouai, si tu veux aller vivre aux etats honteux d'amerique, vas poufiasse, et ammene ces juifes sionistes avec toi! Guy Milliere, Andre Glucksmann, etc etc..

les lackeys des nazis conservateurs n'ont rien a faire en France!

first UN , USA next!!!

ces pédés d'americains, des tarlouzes qui en prennent plein l'anus en iraq!

Muslim rules!

and pls americans, never come back in France ok?

go to yours news friends countries, Bulgaria "xwho killed and tutured americans while cold war, and heklped the nazis to massacre d days alllies soldiers" or romania, lol

or Mouramar gadafy, it's your friend today! a great guy really, his country is a great democraty, and lbian likes the lackeys sniffing as yanks neo nazis!

i have a question, did the mel gibson "passion" is anti semitic? lol hahahahahahahahahahahahhha!

Gluksman said it, who's wonder, simplist animlals as you would just copy the Murdoch medias press, you are to low lmind to think by yourselves!
muwhahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha!!!

"Posted by: Louis Hebert on March 24, 2004 04:11 AM "

what done the french gov that is disturbing you?

they not followed your neo jews sionist cons advanture colonial in iraq?
90% of the planet not folowed that too!

and not forget that, bin ladden has nothing to do with iraq, your gov lied to you all and you ares blaming the french!

there is a mifia at the white house who is lying everyday, they need power and oil, they ares evangeklists pro jews and racist anti arabian, they need guys like you to make beleive thier lies!

as hitler said, "more lies aresbigs, more they ares understook as truth"

and don't bore us with you dad dying to save us!
pr1ck as you, pls, if americans would ever help us, they would did it in 1939, rather to sell weapons and financing hitler in his european venture!

only 35000 allies died in france while a late d day! my dad fough Franco at Gernica since 1936, and stopped war in 1963! in vietnam!

he fough more the nazis than any US of brits sh1ts megalomiacs!

WWII 2.5 millions of french death, and you want to learn you what is the pride and sacrifice?

you make us all laugh, really, americans ares bigs jokes here! comparing americans pain while 2 World wars with french one is like comparing 9/11 victims pains with SHOA victims! ridiculous!

stick your monkeys veterants at home, and take a bath! bastard!