AMERICANS ARE WRONG TO VILIFY THE FRENCH

  Artículo de Guillaume Parmentier en “The International Herald Tribune” del 20.09.2003

France-U.S.

WASHINGTON It is time to restore some sanity in the comments concerning France's position toward Iraq and its relation with the United States. (See "France and the United States are at war" by Thomas L. Friedman, IHT, Sept. 19)

.

In reality, French leaders have been remarkable in recent weeks in studiously avoiding gloating about the difficulties encountered by the Americans in Iraq. No French representative has been heard to say anything like "I told you so," although the temptation must be quite strong. One can discuss the specifics of the French proposals on the future of Iraq, but there is absolutely no French desire for U.S. policy in Iraq to fail.

.

American failure in Iraq could have wide repercussions on the stability of the greater Middle East, including North Africa, and this could have serious consequences for France, even domestically. Indeed, this was one of the main reasons why the French so strongly opposed American policy last winter.

.

Many Americans honestly feel, however, that French foreign policy is inspired essentially by a desire to oppose American moves. This is all the more disappointing to them because they are convinced that the United States acts for the greater good of the world, and that its motives are altruistic.

.

The fact that the criticism is coming from France - America's first ally in history and a country liberated by American soldiers - makes it particularly grating. Furthermore, although President George W. Bush had to admit on Sept. 17 that there was no evidence to substantiate his administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the outrage of Sept. 11, many Americans believe that the toppling of Saddam was a legitimate response to the attacks. To them, French opposition to the war looked like a gratuitous refusal to show solidarity with an ally in need.

.

France's foreign policy - which many in the Western world had criticized for being rather passive in the years of "cohabitation" between President Jacques Chirac and his political adversary, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin - became feverishly active after the last French presidential election in 2002.

.

Many Americans wondered about the sudden change, and impugned to France's new authorities a grand design aimed at countering the United States. They forgot that as soon as the new French government was formed, President Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, launched a major initiative to improve relations with the United States.

.

In fact, France's policy is not determined by a desire to counter the Americans, but by a deep-seated mistrust, inspired by French history, of any excessive concentration of international power. This attitude should be readily understandable to Americans, whose history, Constitution and political process are all inspired by a similar diffidence toward concentrations of power. Clearly, the French should better communicate their concerns to the American public, but that does not make these concerns less legitimate.

.

Indeed, they are probably shared by quite a few Americans. Even Americans have questions about the executive branch or the Federal government holding excessive power. It is certainly preferable that this monopoly be in American rather than in other hands - including probably French - but an international system dominated by a single nation provides no protection against policy mistakes which might have damaging consequences for other countries.

.

Enlightened as American foreign policy has been on the whole, historically it has not been beyond criticism. America has made errors, and could make them again. Domestic politics in particular frequently have had a deleterious effect on U.S. foreign policy. This creates a sense of powerlessness among friends and allies abroad, which contributes to anti-Americanism. Sharing responsibility with other nations would reduce the risk of misjudging situations and making errors.

.

The reason why France articulates this concern more strongly and more decisively than other countries is that France's history has been one of resistance to monopolies of power in Europe. France was built as a nation against repeated attempts by the Holy Roman Empire to dominate continental Europe, as well as against the papacy's attempts to build a religious empire imposing its will on Europe. Resistance to foreign empires is deeply ingrained in French political culture.

.

President Chirac's "multipolar world" probably sounds wrong to most American ears. He means that the world would be more secure if it was subject to a system of checks and balances. Outside the United States, there is a widespread perception of a need for an international system where the major countries and groupings would be empowered to share in the main decisions. Exclusion breeds resentment, which in turn breeds threats.

.

An international system with checks and balances would make it much easier to unite important countries in joint management of the problems of world security and human survival. It would make it easier to isolate dangerous states. "Multipolarity" is not enough: what is needed is a system of shared governance based on a reformed and rejuvenated United Nations Security Council.

.

Indeed, in their mistrust of power concentrated in a single hand, the French resemble no nation more than America. The American Founding Fathers took the precaution of ensuring that no important decision could be made by one of the constitutional powers without the consent of at least one of the other two.

.

In an interdependent and globalized age, many of the tenets of domestic governance apply to international affairs. Indeed a shared world governance would allow the United States to shed some of the burdens it is now carrying alone, to better benefit from the advice of countries with a deep knowledge of regional issues, and to no longer be the prime target of the hostility of the world's downtrodden.

.

In this respect, the lessons of the Iraq war and its aftermath are glaringly clear. America would be one of the main beneficiaries of a world system with checks and balances.

.

The writer is director of the French Center on the United States at the French Institute of International Relations.