QandO

June 30, 2004

Chirac's Plan, Bush's reply
Posted by McQ

A lot has been made of France's opposition to US initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq ... and rightly so. France's leader, Jaques Chirac, has made it obvious that his stance on the question of both countries will be "if the US if for it, France (or at least Chirac) is against it".

I'm interested in the "why" of his position. A quick look provides some interesting information and an opinion.

It is apparent to all but France that France is a fading power. Their country is a wreck, with unemployment consistently hovering at or near 10%. Its welfare state is a disaster, immigration is threatening its culture and France's power, even in the new EU, is slowly eroding. It is the accumulation of these facts which now confront France's leadership. Couple that with internal political woes and you have a leadership and a leader ready to strike out at anyone who further threatens their position.

Why, then, is Chirac so testy? Well first, things just aren't going well at home politically:

In two recent elections voters rejected his party.

70% of voters say they have no confidence in Chirac's Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Chirac's approval rating was a low 50% last August, but is now a sub-electable 35%, according to TNS Sofres, a pollster.

Chirac is battling within his own party.

Chirac is in an internal battle for his political life and indications are his future isn't particularly bright. Because his chances of maintaining power don't look good, there's a urgency to his actions and his edged rhetoric. He seems to believe only he can redeem France's fading power and glory, and because of his political woes, he has to do so quickly. The single greatest roadblock to this internationally?

The United States under George W. Bush.

The point here is important ... the problem is not just the US, but George W Bush's US. A Kerry administration would be much more to Chirac's liking since Bush is on to Chirac's game. A Kerry administration, as admitted by the candidate himself, would attempt to be much more accomdating to our "European allies", a code phrase for France and Germany.

But as an editorial in the NY Post today points out:

The junior senator from Massachusetts is more attractive to Paris than the incumbent president because Bush is on to Chirac's game.

Never mind the War on Terror: The French political establishment is fighting a war against what it sees as Anglo-Saxon political, economic and cultural domination.

France believes it can use its influence within international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union to reverse more than a century of French decline.

If Kerry understands this, he has given no sign of it.

But if he and his supporters are naive enough to believe that the French would suddenly become more accommodating to a Kerry administration, they are courting a rude shock.

Nothing will change the French policy of working to undermine American and British efforts in Iraq or elsewhere — because France loathes and fears America and Britain.

Absolutely nothing would change in France's dealings with the US. However, a Kerry administration would give Chirac more time in his attempt to salvage and consolidate France's waning power. Kerry has made clear his preference for dealing internationally through the UN. France holds a seat on the Security Council and therefore owns a veto on US policy routed through that institution. Nothing could be better for Chirac. The US, under Kerry, would at worst be neutral in Chirac's attempted reclaimation of France's power, and at best manipulated into helping it. Kerry, who touts his "diplomatic experience" would be putty in Chirac's hands.

Bush has essentially written the UN out of the international equation for France, thereby neutralizing Chirac's most powerful weapon in his goal to keep France relevant. In fact, Bush's ability to get the latest UN resolution concerning Iraq passed with France's vote actually outplayed Chirac.

So there's a reason for Chirac's sharp remarks concerning Turkey and the EU.

France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.

France is also uncomfortable about greater E.U. expansion because each new country in the union dilutes French power — and thus France's ability to use the confederation to increase its global clout.

The first reason simply shows France, and much of Europe's, hypocricy. Not that its particularly surprising from a collection of nations which birthed both Facism and Communism. But the second reason is the real reason Chirac blew a gasket. More countries in the EU mean less power for France ... a direct threat to Chirac's plan.

It is something of which Bush is very aware. His remarks were a warning shot across Chirac's bow. It was meant to back him off his intransigence concerning NATO. It didn't work, but Bush's subsequent refusal to back off his remark leaves little doubt that two can play this game and Bush is more than willing to do so.

As mentioned, the UN, as a weapon of France's power, is, for all practical purposes, gone when it comes to the US. That leaves the EU and NATO in which France might be able to exercise its power and pursue its plan while neutralizing the US.

However, there's a problem with the EU as well ... the EU is already trying to shrug off France's attempts to consolidate its power. Things are not quite going to plan ... Chirac's plan:

At the European summit, Chirac tried to sell the draft EU constitution as "good for France," but the Economist wrote that the final text was not the document he had wanted, thanks to provisions that allowed the British to keep a veto over taxation and social security.

Chirac and Germany's Schröder tried to install Guy Verhofstadt, Belgium's prime minister, as European Commission president and were defeated in what the Economist termed "a cruel reminder that, in an enlarged Europe of 25, the French and Germans can no longer steer matters alone."

So when Bush said ...

"America believes that, as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," Bush told an Istanbul audience, adding that its entry would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim World and the West," because Turkey is "part of both."

Furthermore, allowing Turkey to join "would show that the E.U. is not the exclusive club of a single religion"

... it was more than Chirac could stand ... in a now characteristic undiplomatic blast he told Bush to butt out.

Bush won't and Chirac knows it (and you can hear the frustration in his rather rude remarks). So Chirac is left with limited options. He can only block and delay US power and policy through NATO at the moment, while hoping feverently that John Kerry wins the November election and gives France the ability to once again wield its power in the UN, NATO and the EU with America's tacit backing vs. its interference.

Another reason to eschew Kerry in November, unless, of course, you'd like to see France in the position of helping dictate future US foreign policy.

TrackBack