Why is France behaving this way

Great Debates
41

I appreciate what you are saying, and it may be true, but I think the OP was trying to get at what France’s motivation was. There are many who disagree, for whatever reason, but who have not undertaken to inflame the situation.

I just don’t see that. The Arab population did not get bent out of shape in the gulf war or in the war against Afghanistan or when France approved UNSCR 1441, did they? Something more is going on here.

.Here you go.

" The U.S. government should investigate reports that France allowed Iraq to obtain military equipment in violation of U.N. sanctions, a senior Republican senator said yesterday.

“There is no need for France to sell equipment to Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. “It is international treason. … It is in violation of a U.N. resolution, and there should be no question — no question — about French officials. They should come forward quickly to deal with the story.”

Mr. Stevens made the remarks in a Senate floor speech about a report in yesterday’s editions of The Washington Times.

U.S. officials told The Times that American intelligence had detected a French company selling aircraft and helicopter parts to Iraq for its French-made Mirage jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. The sales have been carried out since at least January."

The numbers are based on an assumption of $25 per barrel ( a very rough averge of prices over the last two years). The costs and million barrel per day estimates are in sourced in my original post.

I would agree that this is possible, but I am doubtful that the French see it that way because of their actions over the last 12 years. I am not sure what the current situation is with regard to the development of the oil fields is, but I know that some development has been taking place over the last few years, as is shown in the source in my original post.

I am not sure that I agree. The contracts, as I understand them, call for the French to share in the development of the oil fields and then to share the profits. The destruction of the oil fields or the Iraqi infrastructure make the French contracts less valuable. Take a look at all of the information surrounding these contracts, and I think you will see that there is an insane amount of money involved. IIRC, someone estimated the total value at something on the order of $750 billion dollars. I remember I saw the number and thought to myself “whoa, that’s a lot of Euros.” I didn’t save the link, but I will try to find it again and see how accurate my recollection is.

I also forgot to mention that Chirac called Saddam a personal friend a while back (before he was president) so that may be part of what is going on, as well. I think this is common knowledge by now, but if anyone wants a source, I will look it up.

42

I don’t know whether it factors into French thinking at all, but it occurs to me that by opposing the war France lowers its profile as a potential target for terrorists. (Recall that the Eiffel Tower was once a target of an al Qaeda plot. A hijacked Air France plane was to be crashed into the tower.)

Conversely, if France were to jump eagerly onto the US bandwagon, it would present itself as a target, and a much softer one than the US, given the large Muslim population in France and its close physical and economic connections to the Arab world.

43

I am formulating a new hypothesis. This is all just speculative right now so feel free to shoot it down with gusto and dont ask me for a cite because I just thought of this while reading the other Iraq War threads on this forum.

What would the alliance of Peace gain thru a protracted inspection process? In the end all it does is help a known despot gain more time and increase his status as a legitimate political and diplomatic force. Yes, I am saying France, Germany, Russia and China are supporting Saddam. Get over it. Its not like the USA didnt support him when it was to the US advantage to do so. Its not unheard of. Then we return to the question as to why.

FRANCE:
This nation likes to be a superpower. It has delusions or rather aspirations of grandeur. It cannot achieve it thru its markets no matter how superior they say their wines are. It cannot do it thru military might even with its hundreds of nukes. It can do so politically and its best venue is the UN where it has a veto and liked allies. For once France is calling the shots and the US is just reacting. It is gambling that the US will bow to voice of international consensus. That might have worked when the soviets were here but it doesnt seem to be working with the Bush Administration, plus France would never have tried his stunt with a potential enemy so close to its borders.

It also has a lot to lose if Saddam is removed from power. All contracts negotiated thru Saddams regime, all promised oil exports, development plans after the sanctions, industrial and commercial supplies will be up for grabs and subject to renegotiation by the new US installed govt. France will be King of the UN with nothing to show for it. I believe Chirac thinks he has a lot more to lose going with the US than to go against it.

Russia
Has a history of going against US policy then scooping up prime territory it thinks is beneficial to Mother Russia. Iraq under Saddam is a very lucrative customer of arms and technology and also a great competitor of oil. Once a stabilized govt is in place in Iraq, sanctions will be lifted and Iraq will sell its full quota of oil leaving Russia with lower oil prices and a big dent on their revenues. Look for Russia to always be in the diplomatic corridor trying to negotiate a “peaceful” way out that is beneficial to Russia even during the war. If the US unilatarily goes to war with Iraq, negotiations will be useless because the US has decided not to listen to the UN and therefore has no influence on its actions. I am thinking that with all its bravado, Russia will let France take the veto first then perhaps abstain or follow the vote. It will not vote no first.

Germany
Has no financial, market or diplomatic advantage in this situation. German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is barely riding this popularity wave. He is following what the German people want. No more no less. He’s only interested in his personal politcal agenda.

China
Doesnt like Bush. It has the same situation as the Russians as far as military and technological contracts. It doesnt know that it will get those should the US install a new govt. With a US military effectively protecting Iraq and no known enemies, why would it need offensive weapons? It doesnt care about territory like Russia. It does care about a significant US advantage to the region.

So France has the most to lose if Saddam leaves, so Chirac is doing everything to keep him there. He’s also hoping that the number of Muslims in his country will persuade terrorists to target another country.

44

“There are many who disagree, for whatever reason, but who have not undertaken to inflame the situation.”
I am not sure how the French have “inflamed” the situation any more than the Germans or Russians or for that matter the US. They oppose the current US policy like many countries and have pursued an appropriate policy through the UN. As I have explained their higher diplomatic profile naturally makes them more active than smaller countries who also oppose the war.
“The Arab population did not get bent out of shape in the gulf war”
The situation was very different then. Iraq had attacked another Arab country and there was widespread international support for the war.

Here is the source that you mentioned:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Of interest:
“As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimates $38 billion total on new fields – “greenfield” development – with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believes is highly unlikely). Iraq reportedly has become increasingly frustrated at the failure of these companies actually to begin work on the ground, and has threatened to no longer sign deals unless firms agreed to do so without delay. Iraqi upstream oil contracts generally require that companies start work immediately, but U.N. sanctions overwhelmingly have dissuaded companies from doing so”

This seems to indicate that these contracts aren’t worth much in terms of actual production and profits and this is likely to stay that way as long as Saddam is in power.

BTW your quote also mentions how Iraq was unhappy with perceived French support of US “smart sanctions” which seems to undermine the argument of narrow econonomic motivation.
The Wash Times story seemed awfully thin. Just some vague allegations by some officials not to mention the fact that it isn’t a very good paper. Has this story appeared in any major paper?
“The destruction of the oil fields or the Iraqi infrastructure make the French contracts less valuable”
But they will still be worth more than if the French aren’t making any significant investments in the first place which seems to the case as of now.

Let me also repeat my point that as an oil-importer France will benefit a lot from any long-term reduction in the world oil price if the war is successful. And that the US has just as big an economic stake in the whole issue if not larger. Overall there is very little reason to believe that narrow economic reasons play a bigger role in French policy compared to the US.

45

Does anybody even consider the option that the governments are to represent the will of the people?
In the case of France and Germany the will of the people is to not go to war with Iraq under current circumstances. Why is everybody looking for sinister motives?

I assume that the US government is representing the will of the American majority as well.

46

Europeans have a different mindset to US americans. The former would tend to use negotiation to solve a problem, whereas it is in the USA psyche to see aggression as a solution.

Many of the smaller countries are subject to influence by trade/political bargaining.

A good question would be ‘Why is the UK behaving this way?’.

47

Nah, I don’t subscribe to that antechinus - mind you, it’s an easy observation to make, without doubt.

But history in the 20th Century alone shows that both World Wars emanated out of Europe, and in both of them, there was a huge pressure internally WITHIN the United States to not get involved.

What’s happened though since 1945 is the United States, fabulously wealthy country that it is, has propped up NATO against all opposition. And it has also maintained amazing military bases around the world from Japan to Diego Garcia to Qatar to Great Britain to Germany. The USA has simply found itself by the quirkiness of recent history as being the only country in the world which can FULFILL the role of Global Policeman. And it’s not a role the USA would prefer to do if it could avoid it I suspect, and yet, as the old saying goes…

All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing… my point being, if the USA did NOT use it’s assets for the greater good, they would be pillaried the world over… so it’s quite a no-win situation for my American friends, no doubt.

And it should be noted, I’m no hawk either… but I’m happy to call a spade a spade - there are some real arsehole heads-of-state in the world at the moment, and there are even more “behind the scenes” people like bin Laden who are itching for the opportunity to spread their misguided evil in the name of righteousness.

I have no problems with the USA at all, and I think they’ve tried very honourbaly to use the United Nations the right way.

But mark my words, just 60 years ago Germany for example, was by no means the pacifist nation it is now. In 60 years from, things could change again and they might (perish the thought) be like they were in 1935 once more. Things change… situations change… national moods change…

One thing’s for sure… message boards like this are terrific for disseminating the truth. I, for one, wish there were more Iranians and Iraqi’s posting here for example. I reckon they’d be surprised how gently and respectfully the Dopers here would treat them.

48

Boo Boo Foo, I think there are real problems, libertywise, in both Iraq and Iran. It’s not that they are lurking. Good post.

A cynical take on France and Germany.

49

Sorry, Boo Boo Foo, I don’t see how you end up with military bases all over the world due to history being ‘quirky’.
It requires a mindset where you arewilling to go in there and settle things.
If anything it would support antechinus observation that the US is indeed a rather agressive nation, at least more so than modern European nations.

I have grave doubts about the US using its power for the ‘greater good’, US self-interest is a much bigger factor.
A lot depends on who you percieve as being the agressor in this coming war.
If you see it as a war of agression by the US, as I obviously do, France, Germany and Russia suddenly become those few good men, from your saying, that are doing something.

50

Briefly, the reasons I most commonly read explaining the french stance (in no particular order)

  1. The fact that this “preventive attack” is subverting the international order by creating a dangerous precedent, and will also undermine the authority of the UN, (this assume that there’s no objective reason for the US to attack Irak in particular at this point, which is roughly accepted as a given here…I think it has been discussed so often on this board that I don’t need to elaborate)

2)The will to oppose US hegemony and unilateralism. That’s a constant of french diplomacy. Also avoiding that the UN could become an assembly whose only job would be to give a stamp of approval on whatever decision taken in Washington

3)Concerns about the US gaining control on most of world’s oil reserves. I’m not talking about contracts and oil companies making money, here, but about long-term control of a strategic ressource, through US-supported governments, which seem to be considered as one of the main strategic goal of the US by the french (and many others, apparently) government (not only in the middle-east, but also in south america and africa)

  1. The belief that there’s a high risk that the war could spread havoc in the middle east at worst or weaken western-friendly governments in this area at least. The french ministry of foreign affairs seems to be convinced that if the war in Irak causes serious issues in the middle-east, the US diplomacy will be unable to handle this situation, for various reasons. On a related note, the french government believes that a war in Irak is likely to increase the risk of terrorist attacks, and to strongly decrease the will of many countries to cooperate with western powers in the fight against terrorism.

  2. Its current stance gives France a proeminent position and a great visibility on the international playground and on the overall is considered as giving her more diplomatic weight and influence in north-south relations (in particular by offering a alternative and allowing countries which normally wouldn’t be in any position to oppose the US to regroup behind the french diplomatic “shield”) and also, on the overall, projecting a more positive picture (except in the US, obviously).

  3. Following US lead in a war which is massively unpopular in north-african and middle-east countries would strongly weaken french diplomatic ties and influence in this area, which is traditionnally one of the priorities of french foreign relationships.

7)Obvioulsy, electoral reasons. The internal situation in France isn’t that great, especially concerning the economy, and the war (and more generally US government and policies) is vastly unpopular. Chirac popularity and support has been greatly increased since he began to oppose the war in Irak (and the US policies). And it somewhat diverts attention from economical and social issues.

  1. At this point, appearing as the leader of the anti-war camp, the french government isn’t really any more in a position to really change its stance without losing a lot of credibility, as much on the international level as internally.

  2. Being a permanent member of the UNSC, if a war was approved by the security council, France would more or less have to accept to be directly involved in it (it’s a credibility issue, once again), something she doesn’t want to for many reasons given above.

  3. Undermining the position of European countries which have made the strategic, long-term choice of supporting the USA (for instance, the current spanish government position is much more based on an overall goal to gain more international influence by aligning on Washington than on a real interest in supporting this war in particular) or which would prefer to rely on the US for their security (like the eastern and central europe countries which will soon become members of the EU). One of the main and persistent french goal is to build an actual european foreign policy and an independant european defense, and anything which will weaken US influence in Europe and strenghten the “independant Europe” camp will do.

Two reasons I often read on this board but which aren’t considered as important here :

1)These famous contracts. Except for the companies which would benefit from them, it’s not really considered as a major issue. Actually, there are much more concern about what french companies could lose if France doesn’t support the war (in particular juicy contracts when it will come to rebuilt Irak) which is considered as essentially unavoidable. In order to protect its economical interests, the best way would have been to negociate the condition of french support with the US (like : “we’ll support your war/send soldiers and you’ll make sure we’ll have X% of the contracts”). When I see these contracts mentionned, it’s essentially always in articles refering to the american governement’s and medias’ stance.

On the overall, french companies and businesses tend to be worried by the current government’s stance, would like it to take a more moderate position and their representatives have voiced these concerns.
2)The importance of the muslim population in France. On the overall, muslim vote isn’t taken very seriously here, and political parties don’t make much effort to cater for it. Muslims aren’t politically organized (at the contrary, there are a lot of serious rifts amongst french muslims) and a lot of them don’t vote at all.

By the way, I didn’t mention “moral” motivations, though they might exist in the mind of politicians/diplomats, since they usually aren’t the main reasons explaining a country’s foreign policy.

51

Well, latro, that’s why I love this board. Your observations are just as valid as mine, without doubt.

In my defence, I would ask that you read some earlier posts of mine in this thread. In them, I have been quite open in my assertions that a war in Iraq will probably prove to be a death nail in the hitherto effectiveness of the USA’s “War on Terror” - due to the eviscoration of support in the Middle East where it’s needed.

I’d like to think I’m pretty unbiased. Still, the USA has done nothing this century that Britain didn’t do in the 19th century during the heights of the British Empire. Or for that matter, Spain or France during the era of Napolean say…

I reject outright that nationality engenders one particular form of pacifism or aggressiveness one way or the other. It’s a dreadful form of stereotyping.

52

Magnificent post clairobscur! Thank you so very, very much. I absolutely applaud your fine writing and objectivity. Being a Frenchman, it’s natural that you would be somewhat protective of your government’s stance. But you were neutral - the whole way. Well done.

53

Great post, clairobscur. Thank you for that analysis.

54

Actually, the goal is to build a representative council of Islam in France, in order for the authorities to have an actual and legitimate interlocutor for various issues. Such a council already exists for Jews and protestants, and of course, the Church is doing this job for the catholics.
This isn’t particulary a choice made by Chirac. During perhaps the last twenty years, pretty much every governement tried to organize this representative council, but all attempts failed or were delayed due to the very strong oppositions amongst the various muslim groups (fundamentalists against liberals,Great Mosque of Paris against everybody else, muslims organizations funded by muslim country X against muslim organizations funded by muslim country Y, version of Islam A against version of Islam B, etc…) and endless arguments about its organization. However, it seems that this representative council could be soon finally organized. But once again, it’s coincidental, has nothing to do with the current international situation, and it’s the result of the efforts of many governments over many years, not of Chirac in particular.

By the way, there are obvious expectations that such a representative council (and more generally more organized muslim institutions, like local “schools” educating future imams instead of “imported” or “self-proclaimed” ones) could be able, due to its legitimacy, to counteract the influence of the more fundamentalists muslim organizations.