French utterly baffled by US Adminstration arrogance that equals their own

[astro]

France Says It Is Target of Untruths
U.S. Official Calls Claim ‘Nonsense’

I always thought the French were supposed to be somewhat experienced in the ways of diplomacy. Is this really the wisest way for the French Government to proceed in seeking to rebuild relations by flogging this silliness in public where the Bush Administration can rack up even more approval ratings by making snarky comments about the French.

[John_Mace]

The French are probably more interested in European public opinion than US public opinion. They’re playing to a completely different audience than Bush is.

[smiling_bandit]

I’m not so sure about that. Bush has made some not-so-minor overtures to Eastern Europe and Spain.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s called Fighting Ignorance. Ignorance that is being deliberately spread requires sterner fighting.

Why do you call it “silliness”? What would you call it if the French gov’t had decided not to try to fight it?

[XT]

So, ElvisL1ves, your position is that the French are fighting ignorance from those evil Americans? I’m just checking to make sure what you are saying.

I can see the OPs point…‘unnamed intellegence sorces’ are saying a lot of things, but the OFFICAL administration position (at least, as said in the cited article) is that they have no information on any of it. It sounds like France is spoiling to fight back, but at least from READING the article, the administration is pretty mild about things. That DOES seem a bit silly. Unless someone else has some cites on this showing the the administration is deliberately (and untruthfully) going out of it way to tarnish the image of France. snort Such as it is…

-XT

p.s. MAYBE the truth lies somewhere in the middle? MAYBE American is not the font of ALL evil in the world…and MAYBE France is not so pure and good either? Just maybe, mind you…

[Mr2001]

Oh, please. Every time the U.S. allegedly does something wrong, and somebody calls them on it, out come the knee-jerk defenses.

“Oh yeah right, as if America is the source of all evil. :rolleyes: Why do you hate America so much, America-hater?”

Isn’t it possible that both countries are not so pure and good?

[RandySpears]

Since my dear brothers, the French, are once again being bullied on these boards I’ll grant myself the right to reprint a large portion of a post I made in the thread “Was Maureen Dowd’s Comment Correct, Spin, Innocent Error, or Flat-Out Lie?”. Much of the following is from over there, but I think it is worth repeating.

So then, let’s have a little background on why the French may actually have sound reason to believe that they are the victims of a smearing campaign, shall we?

I was recalling this thread a while back where our friends Revtim, SuaSponte, Bricker and Beagle seemed quite convinced that Chirac had indeed said France would veto any resolution against iraq. Available here. (Search for any and that’ll take you to Revtims first post starting the discussion on Chiracs statements.)

So maybe you guys also remember something about Chirac saying the french would veto every UN resolution that authorized war on iraq? Remember hearing that? Remember reading that? Remember saying that?

Maybe you do. Maybe you don’t. I for one recall those statements frequently flying around these boards back in the days.

But funnily enough Chiraq never said that. It was a quote out of context that completely altered the meaning of his original statement.

Where did that idea come from then? Why, from the UK government, who started campaigning against the french after the british veto draft had to be withdrawn because of lack of support. Prominently by Jack Straw:

Jack Straw, foreign minister, adressing UK House of Commons

Sadly, one country then ensured that the security council could not act. President Chirac’s unequivocal announcement last Monday that France would veto a second resolution containing this or any ultimatum, “whatever the circumstances,” inevitably created a sense of paralysis into our negotiations. I deeply regret that France has put Security Council consensus beyond reach.

These sentiments, a little more distorted on the labour party web site:
The Labour Party, Blairs support for the Iraq war

We believe it should be possible to build support for this proposal. It is extraordinary, and regrettable, that the French have rejected the entire package, without any time for discussion, out of hand. It underlines the strategic decision taken by President Chirac that whatever the circumstances France will veto any proposal that is put forward. This means that despite the fact that they agreed to Resolution 1441, which offered Saddam a “final opportunity” to disarm, and warned of “serious consequences” if he did not take it, France is not willing to take any further action at all.

And then echoed in the british press:
Robin Gedye, The Daily Telegraph

The declaration by Jacques Chirac that France would veto a second resolution on Iraq “whatever the circumstances” is a milestone on his mission to put his country back on the map of world players.

Political editor Chris Fisher in Frontline24

The Prime Minister [Tony Blair] bounced back yesterday from the French president’s sensational announcement that he was going to do the diplomatic equivalent of pressing the nuclear button and, “whatever the circumstances,” veto any UN resolution authorising war against Iraq.

Indeed, Tony Blair turned Mr Chirac’s ill-chosen ploy and words to his own advantage. It wasn’t just the “whatever the circumstances”, it was also that the French president admitted, in saying this, that Saddam was not fully co-operating with the weapons inspectors.
In such circumstances, reported Mr Blair’s official spokesman, the use of a veto would be “unreasonable”.

Making it’s way across the atlantic:
Jim Sparkman, The Cronwatch (A website checking the “bias” of the San Fran Cronicle)

Yet in his interview Mr. Chirac had also dropped the little bomb that France would veto a second U.N. resolution on Iraq, ‘‘no matter what the circumstances.’’ In other words, inspectors could have come back with pocketsful of biological weapons, Saddam could have launched World War III, or he could have gassed three more villages. Non. The French veto was etched in stone.

So, what was it that Chirac actually had said then? Nicely summed up by the Guardian:
Leader, Guardian

The latest spate of British government and media vilification of France over Iraq is unjustified and distasteful. It is damaging to Britain’s own wider interests. It is also less than totally honest. One remark by President Jacques Chirac is at the centre of this storm - his apparent vow, in a television interview last Monday, to veto a second UN resolution “whatever the circumstances”. Downing Street said Mr Chirac had “poisoned” the diplomatic process. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told this newspaper yesterday that this “extraordinary” intervention has made war more likely.

This is a very serious charge. The unmistakable implication is that if the UN refuses to back military action at this time and Britain goes to war regardless, France will somehow be to blame. Without bothering to inquire further, British and American media, notably the Murdoch-owned press, have gleefully taken the government’s cue. Yet as a matter of fact, as opposed to a matter of political and chauvinist expediency, the charge levelled at Mr Chirac is unfounded. What he actually said, according to the transcript, is as follows: “My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq.”

The key words here are “this evening”. What Mr Chirac clearly meant was that, in circumstances pertaining at that moment in time, France would use its veto. He did not say that would be the case at all times; and indeed, since he spoke, several official statements have made it plain that France is anxious to preserve UN unity and will explore “all opportunities” for compromise. That was the import, too, of his telephone conversation yesterday with Tony Blair. To the extent that Mr Chirac’s meaning could have been misinterpreted, he made a tactical mistake. But the overall French position, that war may be supportable but only as a last resort, is not objectively in doubt.

Why Mr Straw and others appear deliberately and provocatively to misunderstand it is a more important question. So what is the answer? Britain and the US seem determined to portray France’s policy as unreasonable to support Tony Blair’s face-saving definition of an “unreasonable veto”. Fearing the loss of the war-enabling second resolution for many reasons, but mainly because the vast majority of UN member states regards it as premature and unnecessary, they conspire to pin the blame for their own chronic miscalculations on France. It is fair to suspect Mr Chirac’s deeper motives. But it is dishonest to try to scapegoat France’s present, logical and in many ways admirable stance on continued inspections for an avoidable crisis that is essentially one made in America.

There: some background for you guys. Carry on.

[Philly_Style]

Why don’t they shoot off fireworks at Euro Disney? Everytime they do, the French surrender!

[Beagle]

Randy, remarkable that the French waited so long to correct the record. Before the war would have been preferable.

What Mr Chirac clearly meant was that…

There was nothing clear at all about that statement. Surprise. Since when do politicians not couch and equivocate.

IMO, “clearly” is a sure sign it’s not.

[RandySpears]

Beagle, please… We’ve already been through all that in the original thread. Just click the link up there. Chiracs meaning was discussed at great length and I do think that a successful argument was made that such was indeed his meaning.

Furthermore from the Guardian cite:

He did not say that would be the case at all times; and indeed, since he spoke, several official statements have made it plain that France is anxious to preserve UN unity and will explore “all opportunities” for compromise. That was the import, too, of his telephone conversation yesterday with Tony Blair.

Mind you that the Guardian article is from way back when, so it did not take long time. But the resonance in the media was weak, for some odd reason. I do wonder.

[Mandelstam]

Beagle, to my knowledge the French have been protesting all along–only just before the war their complaints were directed against the British. Remember it was Tony Blair who had the most to gain from making the French look like the bad guys in blowing the second resolution. In any case, unless you’re reading Le Monde everyday do you really consider yourself well informed on the subject of what the French government’s efforts to defend itself?

astro, what John Mace said. I find it odd that you seem to assume that American opinion is the only opinion worth having; or that Bush is somehow scoring points with the rest of the world. To the contrary, I don’t think that Bush’s efforts to relegate the UN to advisory status and call that a “vital” role are selling that well on the other side of the pond. Though there again, you won’t find much about this in the US media.

xtisme, why assume that Elvis is calling America “evil” simply because he believes that the French have indeed been misrepresented. You are new to these boards: there are many shades of gray discussed here beyond the crude rah-rah-us and hss-hss-them mentality.

[E-Sabbath]

The odd thing is something I noticed during Gulf War II. Google News. You got German news in english. You got English news in english. You got Arab news in english. Heck, even some Russian sites.
But I’ll be darned if I can find Le Monde in english. The French have sealed the world off from them over the net.

[Ogre]

Jesus, people. This isn’t about who feels slighted and who feels they were doing the right thing. International relations has no conscience. This is another savvy political move to rally the EU around them and take a position of “standing up” to the American Empire. They rather handily lost their other recent bid for the same thing, if you recall, so they’re trying again. This is all about France attempting to set itself up as the vocal power in the EU.

You honestly think the French care about Iraqi civilians? When they and the Russians armed virtually the entire Middle East in the last thirty years?

Power and influence. Those are the only currencies (besides actual currency) in politics.

[astorian]

Come now, people, the French are driven solely by idealism, desire for peace, and a dislike of nations taking unilateral military action.

I mean, if the French wanted to send troops to Africa, THEY sure wouldn’t send them in without getting U.N. approval and the endorsement of all their allies!

[flonks]

*Originally posted by E-Sabbath *
**The French have sealed the world off from them over the net. **

So basically you don’t like that the french keep talking their own language instead of slowly switching to english, as the germans do?

Sorry, a little bit exaggerated, but accusing the french for not publishing english newspapers …

On the other hand this fact could reveal a fact already cited above: Every politician only cares about the publich opinion in his own country: As Bush does not care about the public opinion in the rest of the world, the french do not care about the public opinion outside of Europe…

[Abe]

The French have sent troops to African nations without UN approval or resolutions, yes. The justification provided in the cases I recall was the protection of not inconsiderable numbers of French nationals and French interests on the ground during violent revolts, military/rebel clashes, and similar situations involving turmoil and direct physical danger to those involved. It wasn’t for the sake of regime-change, unprovoked assault/pre-emptive strikes, mysteriously absent biological weapons programmes, or what have you. French action in Africa without UN approval was IMO not excusable, but it is not in the same league as Bush and Blair’s falsehood-based war.

The French position has had a lot of mud thrown at them by uninformed or biased posters on these boards. We shouldn’t be throwing mud here, we should be carting it away and exposing the truth.

The discussion RandySpears linked to is worth reading if, as some posters have already demonstrated here, you don’t have a freaking clue about the situation:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185

[RandySpears]

And as a little teaser, by french poster clairobscur:

And , as a general hijack, I will add that I begin to be quite pissed off by the number of ludicrous statements made about France on this board. Essentially everything I read about my country here is complete bullshit. Unbased feelings, opinions given without any knowledge, out of context references, prejudices, utter lies, undigested facts or factoids. Essentially nothing written here is based on an actual knowledge or understanding of this country. Even on a topic so massively and recently covered as France’s position re the war in Irak, tons of posters show how clueless they are. So, you can imagine what level of ignorance are reached concerning less well-known facts.

People here like to claim they’re fighting ignorance, but actually, even several of the regular and usually quite intelligent posters display on this topic a level of ignorance which is astonishing and speak essentially out of their asses. I suspect this is probably true for essentially all other countries not massively represented on this board (IOW, essentially every country which is not anglo-saxon) or which aren’t very well covered in the US medias.

Hope it was o.k. to re-post that clair? But it needs to be said.
And the thread is still at: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Abe *
**The French have sent troops to African nations without UN approval or resolutions, yes. The justification provided in the cases I recall was the protection of not inconsiderable numbers of French nationals and French interests on the ground during violent revolts, military/rebel clashes, and similar situations involving turmoil and direct physical danger to those involved. It wasn’t for the sake of regime-change, unprovoked assault/pre-emptive strikes, mysteriously absent biological weapons programmes, or what have you. French action in Africa without UN approval was IMO not excusable, but it is not in the same league as Bush and Blair’s falsehood-based war. **

You overlook, if you refer to the incidents I think you are referring to, that UN approval is only necessary in the absent of consent of the local government. France has plenty of defense agreements in Africa, and the troops in the Ivory Coast, for example, where invited by both sides to act as go-betweens. Nothing prevents a country from inviting foreign troops on its soil. The UN is responsible for disagreements between nations.

[E-Sabbath]

*Originally posted by flonks *
**So basically you don’t like that the french keep talking their own language instead of slowly switching to english, as the germans do?
**

Nope, just a odd thing I noticed. I’m afraid my french is “La plume de ma tante est pres de la chaise de ma tante.” and not much further. And during Gulf II, I thought I would be edified by learning the french perspective on things. I discovered I couldn’t. I could get the german perspective, the english and even arab or russian, but not french.

This fits their national character and historical sense of importance very well, you know, French is the language of diplomacy and all that. And ever since, and possibly since before, DeGaulle, their primary purpose in international relations has been french primacy, which can be best served by denigrating the US, and the UK. Though the UK part goes back to the War of the Roses.

This is also not a complaint, it is descriptive and entirely logical from their perspective, assuming you think politics is a game that can be won.

Still, I think it’s telling when Al-Jazerra has an english language version and Le Monde (The World) does not. You’d think they’d want to get their message out to people.

Frankly, I think Germany played them for suckers by letting them take the lead in protesting the war.

[RandySpears]

E-sabbath: If Germany and not France had held that veto in the UNSC you would have Freedom-Kraut by now.