Le Monde Diplomatique in english
This one has open access, the one above requires, it seems, a login name at the editor’s discretion.
You mean, the official french position?
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/index.gb.html
There’s even the speech of the French foreign minister at the Security Council in English translation there somewhere.
No, not the official, the reporting and commentary on the official position.
Thanks, tagos. The first one’s what I’m looking for… the second one seems more of a monthly, which I did find, but it wasn’t really useful. I wasn’t sure if they’re the same newspaper, either.
I changed my opinion on this question slowly in the last years. I am Austrian, so my first language is german. In Austria, France has a reputation of being arrogant concerning their language.
The last 4 years I lived in France and I learned a lot more about the country. I am still sometimes pissed of by things as the “exception culturelle”, but in my opinion the american view of the homeland at least equals the french position, if it is not worse (“let’s invade their countries …”). The french and the US both think that world would be better off if everybody adopted their way of life. That’s perhaps the main reason why these two countries hate each other so much. Ironically, there are loads of french tourists in the US and apparently France is (perhaps has been) the main tourist destination for americans.
Concerning the language: I think Germany and France always had different politics concerning language and that already begins at questions how to treat foreign words their own language. Germans tend to adopt foreign words but correct their spellings once in a while in official reforms of the language, in order to keep the rules of the language straight. So, the french “bureau” becomes “büro”, which is pronounced the same way and keeps its meaning. Advantage: Learning german spelling and pronouncation is easy (unfortunately learning grammar isn’t).
The french go another way: instead of adopting the new word, they find french equivalents. “Walkman” = “balladeur” (nobody uses this one, though), but “screen” = “écran”, “computer”=“ordinateur”, etc. This does not always work as the examples “le weekend” and “le chewing gum” can tell.
Advantage: the language stays clean. Well, I always thought that the french are a little bit strange about their language cleaning philosophy, but when I look at german newspapers now, german gets more and more english with all the new vocabulary, especially coming from computer science and technology, I can quite understand it. It does sound strange and makes the language more complicated, harder to learn and less accessible for people who are not into the latest technology trends, e.g. elderly.
Historically, of course there have always been changes in languages, and other languages have been integrated into some languages. English in itself is basically old german with two big waves of adopted vocabulary, the first wave integrated lots of latin, the second lots of french, then followed with a high boost of simplification of the grammar.
While I understand that a single language makes global understanding easy (the best proof is this forum), and although I like the english language and I am one of the rare people who prefer its sound and structure to french, I am still not comfortable with the fact that the english language is assimilated into allmost all other languages.
This is mostly due to the expansion and adoption of american culture via TV & movies. Ironically I found out during my time in the US that the culture you see in the movies is totally different than the one you actually find in the US. “Big deal” you might say, “wow, what a discovery”. It goes deeper than that. But that is a different topic and perhaps worth a thread.
The expansion of american culture is due to its economic success, and mostly it is based on volontary adoption by other cultures. I think this is dangerous because the economic leadership does not imply a cultural leadership. Many things are adopted because they are from the US, without questioning “whether it is good for us”. And this is also true for the language. “Let’s not translate it, let’s use the original word”.
Yeah, dump all your BMW’s and Mercs in a ditch and WALK that flag home.
Question is: Should they dump all their cool new PT Cruisers as well? 
xtisme, if you want to defend lying, go right ahead and try, kid. It would help you to read this thread and the linked ones before you do, though.
I never said that the US does not have an effectively similar position. However, I do feel that in the best cases it is ameliorated by a genuine will to try to make the world better for everyone, even if it does not benefit us in an optimum manner, which rarely happens, because if we make the world better for everyone, it’s better for us too. The French seem more insular and working for single points, if you dig a quick Prisoner’s Dilemma analogy.
I admit that not all cases are the best, and that in recent situations… well. But it’s not just the government, but american business and individual people who have this tradition, such as it is, and from that great things can grow.
And I think corporate culture will swing back that way more, shortly… but that’s another discussion.
Randy-Spears: Entirely right, deft bit of work by the Germans.
flonks: Also entirely right. Culture is highly… hem. Darwinistic. Adapt, assimilate, or die. The English culture adapted to America, and has switched to assimilating the world. Very virulent memes, very strong memes. France is fighting for their unique heritage against their ancient enemy.
Well. I do think that the average US citizen thinks that this is the case and that this is american policy. There are lots of good intentions whenever I talk to americans.
But I do also think that people in the US are in a very unique position in that most of them are totally aware of their image in the world and how they are appreciated.
And I do also think that although many american citizens think that US politics tries to make the world a better place, the official US policy does not make the world better, and more than that, does not even try to.
US foreign policy is based on national interest. point. Not more and not less.
Sabbath:
I think you misunderstood me. My sentiment was that the UK & US would have gone after whomever had the veto regardless of their diblomatic etiquette to try to pressure them into abstaining from voting, and punish them in retrospect should they not do so, as a little lesson for future occasions. Russia is perhaps a more appropriate comparison since they also hold a veto. And indeed, there have also been stories of the same kind as those described in the link OP in regards to Russia.
It’s hardly Germanys choice not to have a veto, so they were in the clear regardless of their actions. Actually the germans did at one point say that Germany would oppose a war even one that was sanctioned by the UNSC in very sharp contrast to Chirac! As I recall it.
I think the actual phrasing was that they would not support one. The reasons for that were multifold: First, the German army is not in a particularly good shape and stretched to the max with operations in Afghanistan, Macedonia, and several other locations.
Second, the German constitution states
The German government was stretching itself thin on the issue with its left constituents anyway. Participation in an invasion of a sovereign country would have been very tricky to defend under the premise and even IF they had succeeded to win the case in court, they would have lost it in the court of public opinion.
As for financial support, the coffers are seriously empty anyway.
Thanks for the additional info, Oliver.
So, in conclusion: Germany was in fact more outspoken against the war than the french so it was not that factor alone that determined who were up for post-war smearing.
Belgium, Switzerland and Austria were even more drastic in their actions. Belgium and Austria denied transit rights, and Switzerland stopped all arms exports to countries involved in the war. Nevertheless, Bush decided to stay across the border in nearby Switerland when attending the summit in Evian. As such, you can even stop arms exports to the US in protest and get lifted over someone who merely said: ‘This is not the time’
Jeeze guys…all I SAID was that MAYBE American is not ALL wrong…and MAYBE France isn’t ALL right. Like, you know, maybe there IS a middle position?? Whatever. You want to jerk your knee, go right ahead. I’m not defending the American Administrations position. I’m not a Bush fan. But I TRY and keep a friggin open mind sometimes. Maybe some of ya’ll might want to try it some time too.
From ElvisL1ves
“xtisme, if you want to defend lying, go right ahead and try, kid. It would help you to read this thread and the linked ones before you do, though.”
Elvis, you want to jerk your knee and believe that America is ALWAYS in the wrong, thats your business…kid. I DID read the thread, and the cited article above…and it STILL seems silly to me for France to be so irate over ‘unnamed sorces’. From what I read (and I might be wrong…cite if I am), the ADMINISTRATIONS OFFICIAL position is pretty mild…THEY aren’t saying all those things. If they (France) are in the right, as they claim, I’d think a better position for them to choose is to simply ignore it…if there is no proof, then its just a lot of hot air, and not even an official position of the US.
I can sit here, with no proof, and call you all kinds of names, or make all kinds of accusations agains you Elvis…are you going to take that seriously? Are you going to scream and shout? Or, are you just going to ignore me. Your best bet is to just ignore the false accusations. If you respond to them by screaming and shouting back, maybe that will give everyone the impression that my baseless accusations have SOME merrit…no? THATS why I thought it was silly. See? Understand now? Prolly not…
From Mr2001
“Isn’t it possible that both countries are not so pure and good?”
Um, I THOUGHT thats what I WAS saying. Maybe I said it badly…but maybe you just THOUGHT I was a knee jerk republican type. I’m not saying everything American does is right or good…snort…far from it. All I was TRYING to say is that, just because America might be in the wrong, doesn’t mean that those European powers like France are in the RIGHT…or that THEIR motives are pure, or their own coat tails clean.
-XT
That’s right, Randy, the US and UK would have done the same to the Germans if they’d been half as loud as the French. I think the germans played it very well.
Yes, I understand they don’t have the same position on the security council, but they also didn’t run their mouths as loudly.
Flonks, note that I said “in the best cases.” This gets heroic things like the Berlin Airlift and the Marshall Plan and, honestly, Kuwait and the attempt on Mogadishu, done.
I mean, we could have just let Saddam have it and paid for the oil, it’s not that important.
On the other hand, the Marshall Plan gives us better and stronger partners to deal with, so we have stronger allies, and better competitors, which improves our products and culture in the long run. So it’s a win for everybody.
Of course, things are seldom so clear, and some of our presidents are venial men.
The problem is that the French didn’t run their mouths loudly at all. The French foreign minister received roaring applause in the UN for his speech, not because he was running his mouth loudly, but because he delivered a very soft spoken, very integrative speech, without any fingerpointing, but rather suggesting respect for everyone.
The running their mouths is largely precisely the problem with reporting on the french position that they are now complaining about. It is a production of misrepresentation of French positions, such as the claim that France denied there were WMDs, or opposed a war under any and all circumstances, none of which are positions France ever actually held.
Additional note: There is a difference between degree of response and how ‘loud’ something is. Chirac was very vocal about this, down to his rant about the potential EU countries having to watch their step.
I do agree on the Marshall plan, Berlin and Mogadishu … the golden area of US foreign politics sigh. I am not so sure about Kuwait …
Actually that is not true. In german newspapers, Chancellor Schroeder was under a lot of pressure because of his unconditional “no”. He was heaviliy critisized and compared to Chirac, who always had spare plans at hand (ignored by the US government) and who played the diplomatic strings better and subtler, always leaving a back door open.
I know that people here think that Chirac did not want the war in any circumstances, but that is propaganda. I also read the links provided as proof and they do not support the propaganda, since the word “circumstances” is taken out of context. Anyway, in the french newspapers I read there was never the question about “no under any circumstances”, in contrast to Schroeders position.
If you ask me: The only reason that France had been “bashed” is because they are the french…
By the way: my personal position on the war is very close to a “no under any circumstances” so I wouldn’t have cared if Chirac had said it, but he didn’t.
Why my opinion? I am convinced that this war was prepared long time beforehand and that the administration would have produced “circumstances” if they had needed them. This war was not about Saddam Hussein or any threat. And it was not about removing a regime because of the iraqi people either.
That second part is exactly what we’ve been telling you. Now, why would you have a problem understanding that America is not always right and France is not always wrong? That’s what else we’ve been telling you, kid.
Now go back and read the whole thread, and the linked ones too, okay? Facts are important. We care about them pretty deeply here.