Pentagon adviser: France ‘no longer ally’
Is this the view of the Bush Administration, and if so, is GWB a hard-nosed diplomat with balls of brass, or is he a dangerous isolationist with delusions of changing the world single-handedly?
In fairness, the article points out that this Pentagon advisor is not technically a part of the Bush administration. But what better way to transmit a message of disapproval to the French, with built-in deniability?
Significance?
Or both.
I submit that he is Wilson in ends, Teddy Roosevelt in means.
Time will tell if that’s a good combination.
That this comment came out a day before Powell’s big dog-and-pony show at the U.N. tells you what this is - the U.S. is leaning on France. The administration expects better behaviour from allies.
There’s a good chance that France will suddenly find this new evidence ‘compelling’ and start softening their stance, methinks.
And note that Perle didn’t say “no longer an ally” (that was the headline writer), he said “no longer the ally it was” (presumably with a view to headline writers’ talents for precis). But he made his meaning pretty clear - the bit about “forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world” hits the nail on the head.
It’s a kick up the backside. Someone’s going to end up humiliated. Will pretentions to “la gloire” finally go down “la toilette” where they belong?
Richard Perle…
…at a public seminar …
…organized by a New York-based PR
Pa-leezzze
Perle is just the modern equivalent of the old “…a source close to the president / PM / whatever….”. I know this administration like this kind sensationalist soundbite stuff but I guess it just reflects their electoral constituency – Perle, one assumes, is used to shore up the GOP headbanging voters. The tabloid media eat up this shit which, ultimately, means nothing but looks ‘strong’ for five minutes … can’t think who else these fake hardlines are supposed to impress…. ?
The French.
France has not been a strong ally of the United States since post-WWII, when they decided to look after their own interests first and let the rest of the world go hang. This is not necessarially a bad thing, as it is always good to have a dissenting opinion, but it certainly explains much of their behavior: If it does not have a directly positive effect on France, any request will be denied.
Note that I said strong ally, by which I mean someone who looks towards the greater good of both countries. France’s political behavior has been entirely selfish.
Can allies not expect better behaviour from the US administration?
Or does the GwB administration expect allegiance not alliance?
The whole purpose of military alliances is to enhance the common defense.
When an ally says they’ll back you in the U.N., and then reneges on the deal after the fact, that’s a big deal.
France could have said, “Leave us out of this.” They could have adopted a neutral stance, promised to simply abstain from a security council vote, etc. Instead, France and Germany decided that this would be a good time for a power play in the EU (they want a Franco-German ‘center’ to the EU, with the two countries exerting de-facto control). This is not good behaviour for an ally.
What kind of ‘better behaviour’ should the U.S. be doing? Just folding to the U.N., even if it thinks its own basic security is under threat?
Bear in mind, “France is not our ally” is different from “France is our enemy.”
Nobody in the Bush Administration is saying “Let’s declare war on France.” What many are thinking (and occasionally saying) is that France is no longer a friend of the U.S., hasn’t been for a long time, and it’s time we quit pretending it is.
France looks out for #1, and they’re entitled to. They long ago stopped pretending to care what the U.S. wants, and it’s time the U.S. stopped pretending that France matters.
Let’s face it: France is NOT a great power, in ANY sense. Not militarily, not economically, not culturally, not politically. There’s no reason at all to take France more seriously than Norway or New Zealand. They have every right to oppose U.S. policy whenever it suits them- and the U.S. has an equal right to shrug and say “Who asked you?”
De Gaulle of those Frenchmen, to think that they might have some say in how an international alliance is run, rather than simply doing what the U.S. tells them to!
Last time I looked, the definition of an alliance is when two countries come together to support common ends defined by the two in negotiation – not when one tries to make rules that the other can follow. (Which is why the Warsaw Pact was not an alliance – the Soviet Union dictated the Party line – literally! – to the other members of the “alliance”)
It grieves me that my country is taking over the role that the Soviet Union vacated.
Somewhere, in a grove in Heaven, Washington and Lafayette are weeping together today.
I have to agree with E-Sabbath on this one.
First, “France is not the ally it once was” is a far cry from “France is not an ally.”
Second, France is the ally it once was. France has never been much of an ally, which is fine. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - if the French government feels that its interests are better served by not being a “wonderful ally” of the US then the French government has a duty to not be that.
Third, I suspect the US is trying the Jewish mother attempt at influencing France, which is kind of funny and I don’t think will work.
Well, once, France was our greatest ally. Never forget that. Pershing didn’t, aphocritically. They saved us, admittedly in order to cause trouble for England. And then they imitated us… failed horribly. And then we saved them and expected them to feel grateful.
Did France sign a treaty of allience to the U.S.??
As far as I know France became a member of NATO.
NATO, you know, that allience where countries vowed to help each other when one member was attacked.
Has the U.S. been attacked by Iraq?
huh? huh? has it?
So Sam, you don’t think it had anything to do with all those unheeded Resolutions regarding Israel and, in the light of those, the duplicity of pursuing the Iraqi issue.
Nor how that duplicity plays to a French electorate much better informed by North African (Moroccan, Algerian, etc) opinion than is the US electorate, the latter tending to be ‘informed’ from a much different, narrower, pro-Israeli perspective ?
Well, yeah. But that was over 200 years ago. Perhaps I should have said never in modern history (since Industrial Revolution). Of course, it’s always interesting that the US reneged on its obligations to France in the late 1700s/early 1800s. It goes both ways at different times.
France was an ally?
I kid. Since WWII France has forged its own independent Gaullist path - trying to play between the US and USSR during the Cold War. Now, its just independent. Which is fine, I don’t think anyone was depending on French military assistance in Gulf War II.
Please, not this again. The resolutions regarding Israel are General Assembly resolutions, with no force or enforcement mechanisms. All the resolutions regarding Iraq are Security Council resolutions, which do have force and enforcement mechanisms.
asterion, incorrec security council resolutions which Israel has violated or in response to Israeli action:
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/unresolu.htm
The Iraqi resolutions were filed under chapter VII which automatically makes them legally binding, however ALL security council resolutions are infact legally binding to UN member countries.
http://www.nad-plo.org/eye/Double%20Standards%20-%20Israel%20Iraq%20and%20Chapter%20VII.pdf
Anyway, that is a slight hijack. France is a sovereign nation and has absolutely no obligation to support an attck which she may see as aggressive and unnecessary.