Confrontation with Iraq is no joke
French jokes are all the rage. From comedian Dennis Miller came the crack, “The trouble the French are causing us over Iraq reminds you why the only French phrase most Americans know is ‘au countraire.'”
Or, from Jay Leno: “So, the French won’t help us get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. What’s new? They didn’t help us get the Germans out of France!”
Or, from an anonymous source: “How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows. It’s never been tried.”
The problem is that the rift with France is no laughing matter. It goes far deeper than Iraq policy and could end up increasing the distance between the United States and Europe.
Inordinately proud of its history — which includes a quick collapse to German forces in World War II and collaboration with Nazi occupation forces — France is smitten with envy at American power, cultural influence and economic vitality.
Basically, the French see themselves as the leader, with Germany, of a Europe acting as a “counterweight” to the “hegemony” of the United States.
French-led Europe wants to depend on the United States to handle necessary military operations like the first Gulf War and the conquest of Serbia, but it wants to spend its own wealth on social programs and use international institutions like the United Nations to bind the United States.
Responding to prodding at home and abroad, the Bush administration agreed to take the case against Saddam Hussein to the United Nations.
The Security Council passed unanimously Resolution 1441, giving Iraq one “last opportunity” to “totally disarm,” but the French are now re-interpreting it to authorize an endless process of inspections, delaying war indefinitely.
France’s motives are complex. They could be partly economic: to protect French oil concessions in Iraq. They could also be designed to prevent the exposure of past French co-operation in Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush administration has not always handled European relations as deftly as it might. Not only did it reject — for good reason — such European projects as the Kyoto treaty on global warming and the International Court of Justice, it was dismissive of European opinion in the process.
While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s delineation between an “old Europe” (consisting of France, Germany and Belgium) and a pro-U.S. “new Europe” (that includes newly free Eastern European countries) may have been correct, his divisive language wasn’t necessarily appropriate.
It’s one thing for late-night comics to tell jokes about the French, but Cabinet members ought to be more diplomatic toward other nations, even those acting as roadblocks to U.S. policy.
A U.S.-led victory in the coming Gulf War could do much to improve America’s image – particularly if casualties are low, U.S.-led forces are greeted as liberators by the Iraqis and huge stores of chemical and biological weapons are uncovered.
All that said, it’s important for Americans and Europeans to understand that the United States will not be acting “alone” or “unilaterally” if it makes war on Saddam Hussein without a new U.N. authorization. Thirty-five nations have endorsed U.S. policy, led by Britain, Spain, Portugal, Australia and Italy and including the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
While confronting Iraq, the United States is also confronting France. By ousting Saddam Hussein, the U.S. can also diminish French influence in Europe. It’s an outcome to hope for.
(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)