Has France shot itself in the foot? (excellent)

[igloo]

Has France shot itself in the foot?

Amir Taheri (archive)

December 24, 2003 | Print | Send

Has France shot itself in the foot by trying to prevent the toppling of Saddam Hussein?

The question is keeping French foreign policy circles buzzing as the year draws to the close.

Even a month ago, few would have dared pose the question.

In denial mode, the French elite did not wish to consider the possibility that President Jacques Chirac may have made a mistake by leading the bloc that opposed the liberation of Iraq last March.

Now, however, the search is on for someone to blame for what the daily newspaper Liberation describes as “the disarray of French foreign policy.â€

There are several reasons for this.

The French have seen Saddam Hussein’s capture on television and found him not worthy of the efforts that their government deployed to prolong his rule. They have also seen the Iranian mullahs agreeing to curtail their nuclear programme under the threat of US military action. And just this week they saw Muammar al-Kaddhafi, possibly the most egocentric windbag among despots, crawl into a humiliating surrender to the “ Anglo-Saxonsâ€.

The fact that France was not even informed of the Kaddhafi deal is seen in Paris as particularly painful.

The episode provoked some cacophony at the top of the French state.

On Monday, the Defence Minister , Mrs. Michelle Alliot-Marie, claimed that Paris had been informed of the deal with Libya. Moments later, Dominique de Villepin, the Foreign Minister, denied any knowledge. Chirac was forced to intervene through his Elysee spokeswoman who tried to pretend that the French knew what was afoot but not directly from the US and Britain.

Some French commentators believe that the Bush administration is determined to isolate France and “teach her a lesson†as punishment for the French campaign in favour of Saddam.

“ Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold,†writes Georges Dupuy in Liberation. “The fingerprint of the United States could be detected in the setbacks suffered by France’s diplomacy.â€

A similar analysis is made by some academics and politicians.

“France over did it,†says Dominique Moisi, a foreign policy researcher close to the Chirac administration. “Our opposition to the war was principled. But the way we expressed it was excessive. The Americans might have accepted such behaviour from Russia, but not from France which was regarded as an ally and friend.â€

Moisi describes as “needlessly provocative†the campaign that Villepin conducted last spring to persuade Security Council members to vote against the US-backed draft resolution on Iraq, He says that the Chirac administration did not understand the impact of the 9/11 tragedy on America’s view of the world.

Pierre Lellouche, a member of parliament, claims that the US has “a deliberate strategy to isolate France, echoing what happened during the Iraqi crisis.â€

There is no doubt that France has suffered a number of diplomatic setbacks in the past year or so. But not all were linked to the Iraq issue or, as many French believe, the result of score-settling by Washington.

Soon after winning his second term as president last year, Chirac quarrelled with British Prime Minister Tony Blair over a range of European issues. The two were not on speaking term for almost six months.

Chirac then had a row with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi after a French minister described the Italian leader as a “dangerous populistâ€.

In the course of the past year Chirac has also quarrelled with Spain’s Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar, both about Iraq and on a range of European issues. Last spring Chirac invited the leaders of central and eastern European nations to “shut up†after they published an op-ed in support of US policy on Iraq.

In September France decided to ignore the European Stability Pact, the cornerstone of the euro, to accommodate the biggest budget deficit of any European Union member. And last month, Chirac together with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, provoked a diplomatic fight with Poland and Spain, thus preventing the adoption of the much-advertised European Union Constitution.

France’s policy in the Middle East and Africa is also in a mess.

France’s passionate campaign to keep Saddam in power won no plaudits from the Arabs.

Many Arab leaders regard France as a maverick power that could get them involved in an unnecessary, and ultimately self-defeating, conflict with the United States.

“I cannot imagine what Chirac was thinking,†says a senior Saudi official on condition of anonymity. “How could he expect us to join him in preventing the Americans from solving our biggest problem which was the presence of Saddam Hussein in power in Baghdad?â€

Another senior Arab diplomat, from Egypt, echoes the sentiment.

“The French did not understand that the Arabs desired the end of Saddam, although they had to pretend that this was not the case,†he says.

In Africa, the recent Libyan accord with Britain and the US deals a severe blow to French prestige. Libya is the most active member of the African Union and its exclusion of France, also from talks on compensation for victims of Libyan terrorism, sets an example for other African nations.

To be fair, France is trying to repair some of the damage it has done to itself, and its allies, by trying to prolong Saddam’s rule.

This month, Chirac unrolled the red carpet for a delegation from the Iraqi Governing Council which had been described by Villepin as “an American tool†a few weeks earlier.

France has also agreed to write-off part of the Iraqi debt and to side with the US and Britain in convening the Paris Club of creditor nations to give new Iraq a helping hand.

And, yet, it is unlikely that France can restore its credibility without a reform of the way its foreign policy is made.

Villepin may end up as the scapegoat .

Liberation complains about what it sees as Villepin’s decision to “practice the art of eating humble pie†by praising the Anglo-American success in Libya.

“What happened to Villepin’s flamboyance?†the paper demands. “How far have we come from the famous French Arab and African policies!â€

But to blame all on Villepin, a rather excitable amateur poet, is unfair. In France, foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the president, with the foreign minister acting as his secretary.

The system was created by General De Gaulle, a larger than life figure, in 1958, and a time that France, involved in the Algerian war and under attack from the Soviet bloc and its French Communist allies in the context of the Cold War, needed a single foreign policy voice.

Since then the world has changed and France with it.

It is not normal that France should be the only major democracy in which the prime minister and his Cabinet and the parliament, not to mention he political parties and the media, have virtually no say in shaping foreign policy.

The cliché about foreign policy being “ the domain of the president†is an insult to democracy.

Had France had the debates over Iraq that other democracies, notably the United States and Britain, organised at all levels, especially in their respective legislatures, it is more than possible that Chirac would not have been able to impose a pro-Saddam strategy that was clearly doomed to failure.

France might have ended up opposing the war, all the same, as did Germany. But it would not have become involved in an active campaign against its allies and in favour of an Arab despot.

France must certainly review its foreign policy. But what it needs even more urgently is a reform of its institutions to end the monarchic aspects of the Fifth Republic.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

Has France shot itself in the foot?

Amir Taheri (archive)

December 24, 2003 | Print | Send

Has France shot itself in the foot by trying to prevent the toppling of Saddam Hussein?

The question is keeping French foreign policy circles buzzing as the year draws to the close.

Even a month ago, few would have dared pose the question.

In denial mode, the French elite did not wish to consider the possibility that President Jacques Chirac may have made a mistake by leading the bloc that opposed the liberation of Iraq last March.

Now, however, the search is on for someone to blame for what the daily newspaper Liberation describes as “the disarray of French foreign policy.”

There are several reasons for this.

The French have seen Saddam Hussein’s capture on television and found him not worthy of the efforts that their government deployed to prolong his rule. They have also seen the Iranian mullahs agreeing to curtail their nuclear programme under the threat of US military action. And just this week they saw Muammar al-Kaddhafi, possibly the most egocentric windbag among despots, crawl into a humiliating surrender to the “ Anglo-Saxons”.

The fact that France was not even informed of the Kaddhafi deal is seen in Paris as particularly painful.

The episode provoked some cacophony at the top of the French state.

On Monday, the Defence Minister , Mrs. Michelle Alliot-Marie, claimed that Paris had been informed of the deal with Libya. Moments later, Dominique de Villepin, the Foreign Minister, denied any knowledge. Chirac was forced to intervene through his Elysee spokeswoman who tried to pretend that the French knew what was afoot but not directly from the US and Britain.

Some French commentators believe that the Bush administration is determined to isolate France and “teach her a lesson” as punishment for the French campaign in favour of Saddam.

“ Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold,” writes Georges Dupuy in Liberation. “The fingerprint of the United States could be detected in the setbacks suffered by France’s diplomacy.”

A similar analysis is made by some academics and politicians.

“France over did it,” says Dominique Moisi, a foreign policy researcher close to the Chirac administration. “Our opposition to the war was principled. But the way we expressed it was excessive. The Americans might have accepted such behaviour from Russia, but not from France which was regarded as an ally and friend.”

Moisi describes as “needlessly provocative” the campaign that Villepin conducted last spring to persuade Security Council members to vote against the US-backed draft resolution on Iraq, He says that the Chirac administration did not understand the impact of the 9/11 tragedy on America’s view of the world.

Pierre Lellouche, a member of parliament, claims that the US has “a deliberate strategy to isolate France, echoing what happened during the Iraqi crisis.”

There is no doubt that France has suffered a number of diplomatic setbacks in the past year or so. But not all were linked to the Iraq issue or, as many French believe, the result of score-settling by Washington.

Soon after winning his second term as president last year, Chirac quarrelled with British Prime Minister Tony Blair over a range of European issues. The two were not on speaking term for almost six months.

Chirac then had a row with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi after a French minister described the Italian leader as a “dangerous populist”.

In the course of the past year Chirac has also quarrelled with Spain’s Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar, both about Iraq and on a range of European issues. Last spring Chirac invited the leaders of central and eastern European nations to “shut up” after they published an op-ed in support of US policy on Iraq.

In September France decided to ignore the European Stability Pact, the cornerstone of the euro, to accommodate the biggest budget deficit of any European Union member. And last month, Chirac together with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, provoked a diplomatic fight with Poland and Spain, thus preventing the adoption of the much-advertised European Union Constitution.

France’s policy in the Middle East and Africa is also in a mess.

France’s passionate campaign to keep Saddam in power won no plaudits from the Arabs.

Many Arab leaders regard France as a maverick power that could get them involved in an unnecessary, and ultimately self-defeating, conflict with the United States.

“I cannot imagine what Chirac was thinking,” says a senior Saudi official on condition of anonymity. “How could he expect us to join him in preventing the Americans from solving our biggest problem which was the presence of Saddam Hussein in power in Baghdad?”

Another senior Arab diplomat, from Egypt, echoes the sentiment.

“The French did not understand that the Arabs desired the end of Saddam, although they had to pretend that this was not the case,” he says.

In Africa, the recent Libyan accord with Britain and the US deals a severe blow to French prestige. Libya is the most active member of the African Union and its exclusion of France, also from talks on compensation for victims of Libyan terrorism, sets an example for other African nations.

To be fair, France is trying to repair some of the damage it has done to itself, and its allies, by trying to prolong Saddam’s rule.

This month, Chirac unrolled the red carpet for a delegation from the Iraqi Governing Council which had been described by Villepin as “an American tool” a few weeks earlier.

France has also agreed to write-off part of the Iraqi debt and to side with the US and Britain in convening the Paris Club of creditor nations to give new Iraq a helping hand.

And, yet, it is unlikely that France can restore its credibility without a reform of the way its foreign policy is made.

Villepin may end up as the scapegoat .

Liberation complains about what it sees as Villepin’s decision to “practice the art of eating humble pie” by praising the Anglo-American success in Libya.

“What happened to Villepin’s flamboyance?” the paper demands. “How far have we come from the famous French Arab and African policies!”

But to blame all on Villepin, a rather excitable amateur poet, is unfair. In France, foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the president, with the foreign minister acting as his secretary.

The system was created by General De Gaulle, a larger than life figure, in 1958, and a time that France, involved in the Algerian war and under attack from the Soviet bloc and its French Communist allies in the context of the Cold War, needed a single foreign policy voice.

Since then the world has changed and France with it.

It is not normal that France should be the only major democracy in which the prime minister and his Cabinet and the parliament, not to mention he political parties and the media, have virtually no say in shaping foreign policy.

The cliché about foreign policy being “ the domain of the president” is an insult to democracy.

Had France had the debates over Iraq that other democracies, notably the United States and Britain, organised at all levels, especially in their respective legislatures, it is more than possible that Chirac would not have been able to impose a pro-Saddam strategy that was clearly doomed to failure.

France might have ended up opposing the war, all the same, as did Germany. But it would not have become involved in an active campaign against its allies and in favour of an Arab despot.

France must certainly review its foreign policy. But what it needs even more urgently is a reform of its institutions to end the monarchic aspects of the Fifth Republic.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam

Great article! where did you get it the POST?

[igloo]

Townhall

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Great article! where did you get it the POST?

if you're referring to the new york post, i don't know how you can read that trash. i've read articles in the national enquirer with more depth and substance.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by xpyrate

if you're referring to the new york post, i don't know how you can read that trash. i've read articles in the national enquirer with more depth and substance.

Amir TAHERI sometimes writes for the "post opinions" part of the paper...him and Ralph Peters and Dick Morris to name a few reputable authors....

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by igloo

Townhall

Ohhhh.... the white supremacist right wing townhall. I get it!! :thmbup:

Jerkoff!

[igloo]

marksimons?????

Those who say the war in Iraq was not "legal" because of the lack of a U.N. vote (although 1441 is ignored), what ae your thoughts on France?

[marksimons]

france is a lovely place.

I love paris, I love french wine, french chese, and french kissing. I like the fact that for president miterand's funeral they had his wife sitting next to his mistress...

however, Jacques Chirac is one dodgy motherfucker. French politics, as a fair amount of politics in europe, is fucked up.

English politics is a bit of a state, Italian politics, oh, dear god, it's a complete fucking shambles, and the french don't seem to be in that good health either.

the bigger problems from this are that the EU constitution, which is being drafted right now, and which broadly I am in theory in favour of, but in practise, it could be a fuck up, by politicians whom I defiently don't agree with.

I mean the french presidential electing system is a lil' fucked from what I can tell, just look at the le pen incident, no-one wanted him, but then a majority didn't want chirac, but they had to vote for the lesser of two evils - oooh a bit like the american presidency - and the individuals involved in politics inspire as much faith and confidence as they do in most places. i.e. not much.

however, there are good things, there was a rather large festival for young people who have alternative views on globalisation in paris a couple of months back, about 50,000 young folks went, and unfortunately I only found out about it afterwards, so well, france can do things that are helpful.

however chirac is just as bad as rumsfeld et al

chirac saddam 1976

his opposition to the war I thought was noble at first, but now, perhaps opportunist and definetly hypocritical.

also, I remember reading about this a while back, but thought I'd find it again:

Chirac's career

1976-1994: RPR President

1977-1995: Mayor of Paris

1974-1976 and 1986-1988: Prime Minister

Since 1995: President

France's President, Jacques Chirac, has been accused of corruption during his time as Mayor of Paris and as president of the Gaullist RPR Party.

Judges investigating the allegations wanted to question him, but have been thwarted by Mr Chirac's claim to presidential immunity, causing one of them to resign in disgust.

BBC News Online's Alexandra Fouché looks at what that means for Mr Chirac and French politics ahead of this year's elections.

What are the allegations against Chirac?

There are several cases under investigation, of which the four biggest are:

Paris public housing (or HLM) contracts backhanders: This investigation, initially opened by Judge Eric Halphen in 1994, concerns bribes allegedly paid for the allocation of public housing contracts, which are thought to have contributed to the financing of the RPR and other political parties. The allegations against two people close to Mr Chirac - the late Jean-Claude Mery and Michel Roussin - prompted prosecutors to ask how much he knew about the scam.

In September, the Court of Appeals threw out the case because of procedural flaws, but replaced Judge Halphen, with another magistrate, Armand Riberolles, who observers say may be able to resume the investigation.

Cash-for-tickets, linked to bribes on secondary school contracts: Backhander payments are also reported to have been made in return for contracts to refurbish secondary schools in the Paris region. The scheme, thought to have been put in place in the late 1980s, is said to have benefited all major political parties.

Once again, Mr Roussin and Mr Mery were implicated, leading the investigation, which opened in 1997, in Mr Chirac's direction.

In July it was revealed that large sums of cash, allegedly totalling almost 2.4m francs ($320,000), had been used to pay for trips for Mr Chirac and his family and close colleagues between 1992 and 1995. He says the money came from his personal allowances, but investigators believe it may have been one way of spending the illegal commissions.

Fake RPR jobs: This investigation, opened in 1996 by Judge Patrick Desmure, relates to fictitious jobs given to members of Jacques Chirac's RPR party by private firms - who would be granted public contracts in return - and the Paris town hall between 1988 and 1995. It is alleged Mr Chirac knew of the arrangement.

Sempap fraud: This investigation, which began in 1997 and is headed by Judges Armand Riberolles and Marc Brisset-Foucault, examines allegations of fraud and favouritism towards the Sempap company, responsible for the Paris town hall's printing requirements between 1986 and 1996 while Mr Chirac was mayor.

[igloo]

thnaks for the rant and ramble as usual, and of course you needed to add your dose of anti-americanism (pathetic)...

but you avoided a major point...again

"........impose a pro-Saddam strategy that was clearly doomed to failure. "

"France’s passionate campaign to keep Saddam in power won no plaudits from the Arabs"

“I cannot imagine what Chirac was thinking,†says a senior Saudi official on condition of anonymity. “How could he expect us to join him in preventing the Americans from solving our biggest problem which was the presence of Saddam Hussein in power in Baghdad?â€

Another senior Arab diplomat, from Egypt, echoes the sentiment.

“The French did not understand that the Arabs desired the end of Saddam, although they had to pretend that this was not the case,†he says.

[marksimons]

jesus igloo, please show the anti-american sentiments in that post?

is it 'cause I say chirac is as bad as rumsfeld? or equate the fucked up french presidential election to the fucked up american presidential election?

shit, I put this statement in there:

"however, Jacques Chirac is one dodgy motherfucker. French politics, as a fair amount of politics in europe, is fucked up."

I posted an article about domestic corruption by chirac...

i agree, that his stance on the war is at the least hypocritical, I am as close to agreeing with you on this one as I ever have been before.

you asked me for my thoughts on france, not the french stance on saddam.

chriac has stuff to hide, as does bush, as does blair as does belersconi, and no doubt the spanish pm who I need to find more about.

chirac is an opportunist hypocite, who whilst opposed to the war never really offered, from what I can remember, as solution that I would have supported.

I applauded his standing up against america, but you're right, there are issues with what he would have done otherwise.

however, there are plenty of ruthless dictators around the world who we have not gone after.

the plain and simple fact is that the iraq war fits into a broader policy on the behalf of the neocons, with respect to moving forces and playing the great game that great nations find themselves embroiled in - this is the reality of the affair.

chirac supported saddam, so did reagan, so did thatcher, so did the chinese, russians and germans.

bush is a hypocrite, so is blair, so is bush, so is chirac, and belersconi takes the biscuit.

all of these leaders, and many others in 'western' style 'democracies' are facing a political situation where the people feel divorced from the descision making process at higher levels.

there are bigger political problems out there than a stance taken by a dodgy french president on an issue which has moved on.

I believe chirac's main opposition to the war was not humanitarian grounds, or pro saddam grounds, but because he believed that this war would open up a can of worms, which it has, that the american and british would not be able to cope, which is in places true, and that this war is about more than getting rid of saddam, which it wasn't.

we must remember, that the initial reason for going to war was the weapons of mass destruction.

you can't get out of that.

the reason, as given by blair, as given by bush was the WMDs, and I believe chirac would have known that this was bullshit, and be suspicious of the motives behind it.

I dunno, fuck knows why chirac was against the war, but he was, but it doesn't matter now, saddam has gone, and we now have to deal with the way in which he is tried.

I would hope that chirac gets fucked over by revelations in the saddam trial, just as many other countries should hopefully be forced into some serious questions about whether it's sensible to allow our governments pretty much cart blanch to do whatever they fucking well please with regards to selling weapons to dictators.

[igloo]

There are so many holes and inaccuracies in your rant it is ridiculous...you have an "interesting" view on recent history and Chirac's stance on Iraq.....interesting = bullshit

I am bored with your bullshit and nonsense. You actually are so single-minded in your purpose to display your anti-americanasim that you contradict your own stance within the same rant.

Get a better grip on reality and you may able to have a more serious discussion.

[marksimons]

but igloo, I agree with you in the main point that chriac is a hypocrite and a wanker

I don't get what your argument against me on this one is.

I don't like chirac any more.

I never paid *that* much attention to what he was saying about the war, it was the very eloquent foriegn minister who got my vote.

I could go back and do some research into what he said about the war and saddam, but, well, what's the point now that saddam has been captured.

chirac is a cheese eating surrender monkey, is that what you want me to say?

what was chriac's stance on iraq then, do you have some quotes by the man to show how misguided I am in my views on him... please... show me...