ANY LONGER?:

Taking the French at Their Word: If you believe that France isn't acting out of pique and has sincere philosophical differences on Iraq, then they may not actually be our allies any longer. (Fred Barnes, 03/14/2003, Weekly Standard)

WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT from an ally who disagrees with us? The question arises because of France's strong objection to President Bush's call for disarmament by Iraq--by war if necessary. The French reaction has infuriated many Americans, stirred talk of a boycott of French goods, and generated a spate of biting anti-French jokes. Angry Americans see France as breathtakingly ungrateful.

But this is unfair. Gratitude is not what's required of an ally. A French retreat on Iraq would no doubt soothe American indignation. And if the French mentioned their gratitude for America's role in saving France in both world wars, bailing out the French economy with the Marshall Plan, and giving France a seat on the United Nations Security Council with veto power, so much the better. But a grateful heart is a character trait, not a principle governing foreign affairs.

Acting in good faith, however, is required of an ally, especially a fellow democracy. France is a member of NATO (not on the military side) and a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism. And it was France and the United States who last fall jointly drafted U.N. Resolution 1441, which ordered new weapons inspections in Iraq.

Since then, France has acted in bad faith. [...]

As an ally, France could have been expected to voice its doubts about American policy, then graciously step back and abstain in a Security Council vote. But France has chosen to undermine the United States. Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq. Then he hop-scotched across west Africa to seek the votes of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea against the American-British deadline for Iraqi disarmament. Ambassador Levitte says Iraq simply isn't an "imminent threat."

French President Jacques Chirac has committed his country to a final hostile act. Last Monday he said that a majority vote in favor of the British-American plan to set a deadline for Saddam to complete the disarmament of Iraq will not stand. France will veto it, using the gift given the beleaguered French at the U.N.'s founding to make them feel like an important nation.

Lastly, it's the obligation of an ally not to blow up its relationship with a long-time friend if at all possible. On Iraq, maintaining the French-American tie is quite possible. The problem is France doesn't seem interested, though Levitte says the French-American tie is critical to France. If so, France might have outlined its opposition to U.S. policy in a closed-door session of the Security Council. On the contrary, France brushed aside an American request and insisted last Friday's session be held in public, thus on worldwide television.

The French answer to American criticism is that their opposition is not based on anti-Americanism but on sincere differences. They are wary of using military force, fearful a war with Iraq and regime change will create instability in the Middle East, and dubious of American plans to install democracy in Iraq. So the differences between the United States and France turn out to be philosophical and deep. With the gulf this wide, it may simply be a mistake to think of the French as the ally they once were.

NPR just had an unintentionally hilarious interview with William Hitchcock, author of The Struggle For Europe, who sought to downplay the break between the U.S. and France by noting all the other times we've differed: Suez, NATO, replacing missiles in the 80s, etc.. But then he concluded by saying that the relationship was important because we share common interests. Given that we've disagreed on all the big issues, what commonality is he talking about? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 16, 2003 8:43 AM