France says adieu to le bulldozer

Jacques Chirac has been a fixture of the French landscape for so long, it is hard to imagine him leaving. He goes tomorrow, though he plans to stay active at 74, joining the ex-statesman's circuit with a foundation of his own.

People in their 40s and younger can barely remember a time when Chirac was not either Prime Minister, running for President or reigning in the Elysée Palace. Older Parisians still call the municipal water Château Chirac from his 18 years as Mayor. Tony Blair likes to recall that the bulldozer, as Chirac was known, was Prime Minister when he was a student working in a Paris bar. At that time, I was briefly in Paris as a trainee reporter for Reuters and Chirac, all vigour and motion, was the first senior politician whom I ever watched in action.

Over the years, we have all at times rubbed shoulders with the genial, extrovert Chirac. When he was down in the polls six months ahead of the 1995 presidential election  he gave me an hour in his Paris Mayoral office for The Times magazine. He mused on France and life in general and impressed me with the famous charm. He sounded positively presidential and went on to win, although he was being written off as a certain loser at the time. Like much of France, I found it impossible to read the man behind the sleek, blustery exterior.

As the country takes stock of the very bumpy années Chirac, the consensus holds that the man has been a bit of an enigma. Admirers call him a sensitive soul and loyal friend with far deeper knowledge and understanding of the world than his caricature as a power-hungry opportunist. They credit him with holding together a fractious country and for projecting France well in the world, most remarkably by opposing the US invasion of Iraq.

Opponents have always seen Chirac as an unscrupulous political carnivore with an unmatched lust for power and great resilience but little depth or vision. They give him credit for Iraq and reconciling the country with the darker periods of its history - notably the wartime collaboration with the Nazi Holocaust -- but little else.

The headline for the history books' chapter on the Chirac era should read: Missed Opportunity. Chirac arrived promising to reverse the sense of decline that was already prevalent. He would modernise France, heal the "social fracture", integrate immigrants, reduce unemployment and restore national pride. He achieved very little of that. He gave up reforms under pressure, lost power for five years to the opposition and seemed for much of the time to be observing his country like a distant monarch. He lulled France with reassurances that nothing need change much.

Over the past 18 months he became eccentric. He reverted to the radical ideas of his youth, calling the American-led globalised economy a threat to the world as great as Soviet totalitarianism had been. Jacques Marseille, the Sorbonne economics professor, said on Monday that he was grateful to Chirac. "I write history manuals and he has enabled us to deal with the 1995-2007 period very quickly: there will be nothing to say."

Yet France is still fond of Chirac, like a family is fond of a roguish old uncle. Libération, no friend of Chirac, came up with a good line today.

General de Gaulle wanted to show the French what they should be, wrote Laurent Jauffrin, Libé's editor. Chirac gave them a reflection of what they are. Thus the strange mixture of indulgence and animosity that they feel for a human presidency - a too human one.

 

Comments

[PJ]

I agree that twelve years of Chirac have mainly been about missed opportunities - rather like ten years of Blair and Brown actually. He has sacrificed France to his own ambition, and displayed every bit as much opportunism as his unloved predecessor. About the best you can say about him is that he avoided obviously disastrous courses like the one Mitterrand pursued between 1981 and 1983.

[richard jones]

A, perhaps the, major contributor to France's decline. The only good thing he did was to allow his court to reduce his second term to five years

[Terry]

Chirac is a man of shortsighted vision. The construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam in 1980 was his project. I guess it never occurred to Chirac why would a dictator in an oil rich company want to go nuclear. We should all thank God that the Israelis made rubble of that idea.

If Chirac's greatest success was opposing the Second Gulf War, then his presidency should be deemed a complete failure. What was this great foreign policy success Chirac had in opposing the Second Gulf War? Did it stop the coalition from invading Iraq? No. Iraq was invaded and Saddam was removed. Chirac's policy demonstrated the futility of using the U.N. to resolve international disputes and that that U.N. resolutions are meaningless. (On second thought, perhaps Chirac did accomplish something useful).

All Chirac managed to do was coddle a dictator and destroy French-U.S. relations. Sending De Villepin around the world to make the U.S. look like the bad guy did nothing more than give Chirac's buddy Saddam the false illusion that he could avoid war because the coalition was seemingly diplomatically isolated. In the end, Chirac's "diplomacy" guaranteed the invasion.

The twin reasons for Chirac's opposing the war were to take the U.S. down a peg and to protect French contracts with Saddam. Apparently, French contracts were more important than ridding the world of a ruthless dictator who killed millions of people. How altruistic.

Patton once said he would rather have two German divisions in front of him rather than one French Division behind him. I think this sentiment expresses how many Americans now view France as an ally. The French people may love Chirac for sticking his thumb in our eye. But French wine and cheese sales in America are way down.

The only clear vision Chirac had, was his own aggrandizement of power.

P.S. An interesting link showing who benefitted from keeping Saddam in power.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

[AL]

It's always interesting to read the insightful comments of foreigners on our politics.....

French people aren't fools and we are aware that chirac is not the best president, but all Frnace is behind him when it comes to Irak. We would rather loose all sales from America and UK on our cheeses and wines, (by the way noone buys them in the states because of the import tax, it makes the produce to expensive anyway), than invade another country without any good reason.

You want to know the result for France, teh last terror atack was in 1995 and no french citizen has died beceause of the second gulf war. The other result is that France is not resposnible for the fact that Irak is in worst shape than with Saddam, that Irakee people are dying of hunger, diseases and war.

And yes, French people are prooud of that and proud of having a president who has the guts to say no to the USA.

Some should take lessons before criticising other countries.

[The 3rd column]

Al,

I agree entirely with you. President Chirac will leave a legacy of being the better statesman than the lying Blair and Bush and their accolytes put together.

On the moral issue that is Iraq, the two major Western leaders who pretend to lead by example - Bush and Blair - failed and failed miserably on that score.

Foreigners may criticize Chirac but we are proud to have had a leader who knew that the illegal invasion and war on Iraq was wrong and it is wrong whatever Bush, the warmonger, the political cavalier and his lapdog Tony Blair may say or do.

Chirac's leadership on that very moral issue will never ever be flawed.

For that alone, we would forever be indebted to the president and leader that was Jacques Chirac.

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

A simple question : do you think that the US would have invaded Irak if this country would not have been "an oil rich company" (??) but only a poor sandy spot populated by some overarmed Chia, Sunnites and Kurds led by a dictator?

By the way, their weapons were as well of American as of French origin ,plus some others as well.
Weapons of mass destruction (the main reason claimed for the invasion of Irak) were not found there after the war and that was obvious prior to the war (UN inspection mission, satellite observations, intelligence etc.)

[Anne]

Terry,
In France, a majority of people don't really like or admire the current US president. But we like America and the American people. We believe in the long history of friendship between the two countries, irrespective of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I was fascinated by the outpouring of resentment and (sorry for this strong word, but it seems appropriate) hatred in the comments you wrote in the Times today. The topic is simply Chirac’s departure from the French presidency. So why turn it into a negative fixation about France as a whole ? You did not leave anything out, you even go back in time to WWII !(were you there ? my grandfather was, and sadly died in the American convoys). Dear Terry, move on. You apparently (still, after all these years) feel very strongly about war in Irak and France’s decision not to join in. What specially does not impress me in what you wrote today, is that you seem to rejoice in the retaliation measures inflicted upon French …cheese producers. You are right, this should truly force our admiration…What an achievement, how courageous on behalf of a great country. Highly symbolic measure there. No economic motive behind it, of course not..
Well, if I remember well, France was not isolated in its decision to stay out of the conflict in Irak. So how is it that you don’t mention the other countries opposed to it , namely China, Germany and Russia? Why didn’t they get victimized the same way ? And, by the way, just where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, ready to strike ?
There is very little interest in trying to find a scapegoat for the political, diplomatic and military disaster Irak has now turned into. True, Saddam had to go. But something better was expected to follow his horrendous regime. Can you honestly say it is the case ? Everybody makes mistakes, still the US (maybe because it is such a young country) seem to have a remarkable incapacity to understand other mentalities, other countries. That might partly explain the fact that - while, as you like to say, “French wine and cheese sales in America are way down” (your well meaning closing words) – at the same time the number of friends of America on this planet is – also - way down. Sadly it seems the USA don’t have much of a fan club left in the world today. Food for thought.
Don’t get me wrong. I like America. I have met wonderful people there, really. But I believe it is a shame to try and encourage (or relay in your case) hatred between people, whatever the political circumstances or politicians in office. Remember, Chirac is no more France than Bush is America. And thank God for that. Anne

[Anne]

Terry,
In France, a majority of people don't really like or admire the current US president. But we like America and the American people. We believe in the long history of friendship between the two countries, irrespective of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I was fascinated by the outpouring of resentment and (sorry for this strong word, but it seems appropriate) hatred in the comments you wrote in the Times today. The topic is simply Chirac’s departure from the French presidency. So why turn it into a negative fixation about France as a whole ? You did not leave anything out, you even go back in time to WWII !(were you there ? my grandfather was, and sadly died in the American convoys). Dear Terry, move on. You apparently (still, after all these years) feel very strongly about war in Irak and France’s decision not to join in. What specially does not impress me in what you wrote today, is that you seem to rejoice in the retaliation measures inflicted upon French …cheese producers. You are right, this should truly force our admiration…What an achievement, how courageous on behalf of a great country. Highly symbolic measure there. No economic motive behind it, of course not..
Well, if I remember well, France was not isolated in its decision to stay out of the conflict in Irak. So how is it that you don’t mention the other countries opposed to it , namely China, Germany and Russia? Why didn’t they get victimized the same way ? And, by the way, just where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, ready to strike ?
There is very little interest in trying to find a scapegoat for the political, diplomatic and military disaster Irak has now turned into. True, Saddam had to go. But something better was expected to follow his horrendous regime. Can you honestly say it is the case ? Everybody makes mistakes, still the US (maybe because it is such a young country) seem to have a remarkable incapacity to understand other mentalities, other countries. That might partly explain the fact that - while, as you like to say, “French wine and cheese sales in America are way down” (your well meaning closing words) – at the same time the number of friends of America on this planet is – also - way down. Sadly it seems the USA don’t have much of a fan club left in the world today. Food for thought.
Don’t get me wrong. I like America. I have met wonderful people there, really. But I believe it is a shame to try and encourage (or relay in your case) hatred between people, whatever the political circumstances or politicians in office. Remember, Chirac is no more France than Bush is America. And thank God for that. Anne

[richard jones]

Cher Al,

Méfiez-vous quand vous désignez le titre d'étranger aux personnes qui contribuent à ce BLOG.
D'abord des fois le nom de famille déguise une nationalité même des fois un lieu de naissance.
Deuxièmement le plus longtemps que vous vous accepter le point de vue que les étrangers ne comprennent rien de la France ou pire ils n'ont pas le droit de la critiquer le plus longtemps vous risquez d'être aveugle aux problèmes grave en France et le débat qui a dû se passer pour les régler.
Surtout svp rappelez bien qu'une France en moins de difficultés et moins perturbés est pour le bien de tous, soit l'EU, les Etats-Unis, et le monde en générale.

[Terry]

Well, Charles was right. The French just love there Chirac for his cowardly "Non!".

3rd Column said: Chirac's leadership on that very moral issue will never ever be flawed.

Really? Coddling a dictator is moral? Building a nuclear power plant for a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people is moral? Giving diplomatic cover to a brutal dictator to protect France's business interests is moral?

Saddam Hussein is not a sovereign leader. He was not elected by the Iraqi people. He rules solely at the point of a gun not by an election. And he was removed by the same rules he plays by.

It's okay if France (as usual) didn't not want to help with the heavy lifting. Please remember that French independence you so swagger about was only achieved through our (england, aust., can., nz, etc) liberation of your country. Permit us to do the same for Iraq without mocking us with some false sense of higher morals. France's opposition was all about your wallet, 3rd column.

Daniel asked:

A simple question : do you think that the US would have invaded Irak if this country would not have been "an oil rich company" (??)

Yes, certainly a "simple" question. This is the same simplemindedness that is so tiresome but easy to swat down. The price of oil has gone up to nearly $4 a gallon here (200% increase). So, the inference that we wanted to control the oil to benefit consumers has no merit. Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Korea, Serbia (kind of), Lebanon, Panama. None of these countries has oil, yet the United States sent troops to these countries in order to protect democracy. Oil is important to democracy. But freedom is more important to democracy. Name for me one war between two democracies (maybe War of 1812). All the most destructive wars are totalitarian countries verse free countries (or verse other totalitarian countries). These middle eastern countries still live in a political system akin to the 12th century. With nuclear weapons, we can't wait any longer. It is time to start helping these people toward democracy.

The French are not reknown for their foresight. It was too late to use an ounce of prevention when German tanks were rolling under the Arc de Triumphe . And it will be too late when someone lights off a nuclear firecracker in New York or someplace that is dear to you.

BTW: It was not the French opposition that insulted Americans. Germany said no. It was the manner it was done that provoked such anger in America.

[rocket]

http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0515/france.html

dah! don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Just go into the street and listen

[R Bernadette Shah]

As an international statesman, Chirac would be remembered as the firm voice of reason against the US nvasion of Iraq which was a clear violation of international law.

[Terry]

Anne:

Why don't I resent Germany, China, etc.? Well, I don't think it was any country's obligation to agree with us. Each one has the right to say no. Those countries said no, so what? What I objected to, and what you ignore, was the MANNER in the French did it. Chirac sent Dominique De Talleyrand around the world to campaign against the coalition and to make us the villian. That was really bad form from a supposed friend. And what was all this about? So Chirac could protect his little dictator and all those perky contracts. How nice. Why didn't Chirac just build Saddam another reactor?

Of course I did not fight in France. But three of my four uncles fought there to liberate your country (the fourth was in the pacific). Ironically, they both hate Bush. But they hate France even more for the way they went about it the whole Iraq method. The word my Uncle Bill used was "ingratitude". There was another word before that but this is a family blog. I understand that the French may want to forget how they had to be liberated by the U.S. but sometimes it might be good for you to remember how that came to pass.

Lastly, I don't believe Iraq is a disaster. The coalition took the entire country with only a couple hundred casualties. Compare that to the slaughter of Iwo Jima and that is quite a military accomplishment. We are controlling a country of 25 million with 150k soldiers. That is very impressive. The Iraqis have had several free elections. Yes, a bomb goes off every day or so in a market. But, militarily, that is insignificant. For the most part, Iraq is quite peaceful. I know since my Rotary sends packages to troops from my town.

[Terry]

Chirac. International statesman. What a laugh. More like-International salesman. Will sell to highest bidding dictator.

[richard jones]

Bernadette,

You are quite correct, or are you? Do you remember Chiraq's reasons for saying no? I bet all you remember was his saying Non! Do you remember Chiraq being loudly against the American build-up in Kuwait and Gulf right from the start? You don't because he wasn't until he could see a clear means of humiliating the USA by causing them 'to loose face' a serious Semtic cultural thing if they pulled out.
There are also the money issues, perhaps overplayed.
The NON was right and as soon as we began to see the pictures on the wall and the Colin Powell show we all realised something was not quite right and yes we didn't exactly believe George had the intellectual wherewithal to see it through to a 'good end'. But 'La France, c'est moi' Chiraq did not offer any other solutions to the USA as a genuine world statesman might have done.
He simply rubbed salt in the wound.
He was right but the way it did it was a cheap and nasty gesture much more likely from a school bully than an international figure.
Then he slags the new members of the EU in another fit of self-righteous pontification.
The man did so badly here. He had an opportunity to do a Lafayette and ended up doing a de Gaulle bis.

[marine]

I guess Jacques Chirac is like any other person you'v got used to. We have always seen him around. You end up growing some kind of affection for him.

I agree with Charles comments, he said some necessary truth about French past and I consider he didn't do too bad on the world and european scenes. He did so with his own strenghts: he has strong and diverse networks, real interest in other cultures and little respect for transparency and use of public money.

It's a good thing he retires, I hope the bad manners and habits of the French politician elits of his time will be gone too... But I am not very optimistic.

Terry, you gave us a great list of democratic and free countries as the result of do-good military interventions.

[The 3rd column]

Cool it, Terry, no need be frightfully upset. I suggest you read Anne's post to learn a bit more.

If you notice, my appreciation of President Chirac for his opposition to what was unequivocally Bush's and Blair's illegal invasion of and war on Iraq does not make me (or those I know who are opposed to the Iraq invasion) hate the ordinary Americans or Brits.

I do believe that there are many people in France who despise Bush and Blair for what they've done and for what they continue to do but I don't believe for one second that they would stoop as low as you do with your vitriolics against the French.

Oh and by the way, do revise your history again. While we are grateful for the rest of the Allies for helping the French free France of the Germans, it would do you a lot of good to acknowledge that the French were part of the invading forces to free France.

It would also do you a lot of good to know that a French marquis and French troops helped George Washington defeat King George's armies in the former British colony that you now call United States of America.

Anyway, Terry, you may believe what you want - your absolute right to do so - but I counsel prudence when it comes to intimating that "you know the French"; it is not because "you scream louder or loudest" that you are right.

[The 3rd column]

Re Lies about the WMDs: I suggest good reading material on the matter, i.e., the Downing Street Memos found in Mick Smith's webs site (Mick is Charles Bremner's fellow Times writer).

http://www.michaelsmithwriter.com/memos.html

On Bush's planned invasion of Iraq:

'The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.' says Sir Richard Dearlove, chief MI6 in 2002

[Sherry]

As an American, I feel compelled to chime in here.

Terry, I don't quite understand your apparent(continued) anger on this point towards France. Sure Chirac probably could've been a bit more diplomatic in his approach, but that's really not a reason for your broad generalisations about the French and, frankly, your hostile comments towards French people in general. As a sovereign nation they had every right to make the choice they did...perhaps it's time to respect this choice and move on. The reality of the situation is that we're still allies and work together on several fronts (trade/investment, anti-terrorism efforts, etc), so doesn't it make sense to move forward on this point rather than going-on on this 'your with us or against us' theme for any longer?

In addition, I don't believe for one second that the 'anti-french' boycott bandwagon that we saw leading up to the Iraq war (and just after the invasion) in the US is still going on. In fact, as someone who loves wine (and reads up fairly regularly on the industry), you actually were not correct on the 'declining' sales of french wine in the States. Perhaps you didn't follow the 2005 Bordeaux en primeur campaign which was one of the biggest (in terms of sales) in the US in years, or the fact that there was actually a fairly significant inc in French wine exports to the US in '06 (even with the weak dollar), etc...also one other pt, I believe the avg national gas price per gallon in the US now is $3, not $4 ;-).

You mentioned previously you were visiting France soon...honestly, given your views expressed on this board, why do you want to come here (France) again?

[Sherry]

As an American, I feel compelled to chime in here.

Terry, I don't quite understand your apparent(continued) anger on this point towards France. Sure Chirac probably could've been a bit more diplomatic in his approach, but that's really not a reason for your broad generalisations about the French and, frankly, your hostile comments towards French people in general. As a sovereign nation they had every right to make the choice they did...perhaps it's time to respect this choice and move on. The reality of the situation is that we're still allies and work together on several fronts (trade/investment, anti-terrorism efforts, etc), so doesn't it make sense to move forward on this point rather than going-on on this 'your with us or against us' theme for any longer?

In addition, I don't believe for one second that the 'anti-french' boycott bandwagon that we saw leading up to the Iraq war (and just after the invasion) in the US is still going on. In fact, as someone who loves wine (and reads up fairly regularly on the industry), you actually were not correct on the 'declining' sales of french wine in the States. Perhaps you didn't follow the 2005 Bordeaux en primeur campaign which was one of the biggest (in terms of sales) in the US in years, or the fact that there was actually a fairly significant inc in French wine exports to the US in '06 (even with the weak dollar), etc...also one other pt, I believe the avg national gas price per gallon in the US now is $3, not $4 ;-).

You mentioned previously you were visiting France soon...honestly, given your views expressed on this board, why do you want to come here (France) again?

[pouet]

I think Chirac was rather good on Iraq. The way he led contestation was rather harsh, but what was at stake was the failure of this war.

But don't miss the point, it was a political and economical calculation:
- Iraq was a broken country (2 wars in less than 20 years + massacres)
- It was not a short-term threat
- War would not lead to peace but to chaos, and no army can stay in the place more than a few years
- The first Gulf war was an economic opportunity for USA, but not for France
- France would not benefit from military expenses
- Making war against Iraq was not the best way to reduce terrorism

So let's be the challenger.

I agree that the last part is stupid, but I don't think there was any other way (Europe was divided on this subject)I think Chirac hoped to bring back USA to reason. Once he discovered it was not possible, he put aside politeness (everyone would do that for what is a matter of lif or death) Truly, I don't think he wanted to have a confrontation with USA (he likes the country so much)
For the supposed interest he had with Sadam Hussein, I don't think that it weighed very much in comparison to the interest France shares with USA.
Clearly, the ego part is a very important one in his decision.

Please, forget the argument "we are not going to buy your wine". The decrease of french exportations to USA is null. It makes me think of your comment, Terry, when you talked about not spending your money during your stay in France. From my point of view, I'm not expecting you to spend your money in France, but I'd rather like you to enjoy your stay here. It's going to be hard, I'm afraid.

To me, Chirac was an archaic president. We had no choice but him, because he was embodying the old politic system. This system, we deserved it. For our lack of pragmatism, and vigilance (against corruption for instance)

But still, I've red some people on this blog rejoycing for the election of Sarkozy. It's truly a new era. A time for action. But I'm really sceptical about the way he is going to act.
We'll need more change after that: police, justice, corruption (he is not going to do anything on this subject, he is part of the business)

[Stephen Bull]

1997-2007 Tony Blair
1995-2007 Jacques Chirac

Two stories of disappointment and failure.

Chirac was elected in 1995 to cure the divisions in French society. He not only failed but each time he had the chance to succeed he fled, leaving good ministers like Alain Juppe to hang out to dry. He claimed that a president who failed to carry an election should resign rather than share power but he hung on twice. He promised everything and did nothing. Chirac lied to the French and left them disappointed.

Blair was elected in 1997 and promised to cure Britain's ills. He did spend what he said he would; he spent emormously on health and education but without much effect. The results are still not clear. But there was a but and that was Iraq. He lied enormously and he will always be remembered as the British Prime Minister who lied to the British people.

Blair tried to do what he promised; he failed because he was not bold enough, and he added a major mistake; Chirac was a enormous grandstander as godfather of Europe, but on the big issues for the rejuvenation of France or the world, he did not even try!

[Dominique]

I am afraid Terry is in denial this time.

By the way, why shouldn't France be allowed to try to stop the US from doing a mistake if it belive it is the right thing to do? You could say that the US stopped France from trying to avoid the Irak war and therefore betrayed France!

Terry, come on.

[Ros]

3rd Column says to Terry,"it would do you a lot of good to acknowledge that the French were part of the invading forces to free France." - I must add that I agree - my late french husband was in the maquis at a very young age when I was still at boarding school in England! He wasn't very expansive about it but I did learn quite a lot.

[Valentin]

Oh just let Terry say what he wants... all americans here are the same, just like George Bush, they would rather die or turn the world into ashes than admit mistake.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died already, and all they care about is that 105k troops keep a country of 20m. (do they really...)
I was looking at the latest neocon story on TV, Wolfowitz being "convicted" by the World Bank board, and seeing how all Bush found right to do, was stand by him.
They just never admit mistakes. Let millions more die in Iraq, they'll still babble around about Freedom and Democracy and so on and so forth...
It's just sad, please let's just drop it on Iraq.

[honestJon]

"illegal invasion of and war on Iraq": A total falsehood! Please remember that The U.N. passed a resolution that allowed military intervention. Please also remember that the U.S.A. went there at great cost to itself for numerous reasons other than WMD. Foremost among them: so that the Iraqis would have a chance at democracy and a good life. If it werent for evil Muslim terrorists, that country would be one of the most prosperous in the world by now. It still may become a great world power but only if the Iraqis themselves will pony up and forget their religious urges to murder each other to come together for long enough to become a true nation-state.
My only real beef with Pres. Chirac was his handling of the run up to the war. It is fine to disagree (the U.S. has 300 million disagreers) but not to try to thwart the good will of the American people.
The bottom line: if you don't agree with us, that is okay. Just get out of our way, s'il vous plait so we can at least attempt to do a good deed!

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

You do not have answered really and convincingly my « simplistic » question, but it does not matter. You are what one may possibly call a fanatic – that means a reasonable conversation is hardly possible.

It seems that you like history (me too – this is an interest we have in common). You made a reference to the 12.th century. At that time occured what is called by the French historians « la croisade des Albigeois « (croisade means crusade; the Albigeois were the inhabitants of the city of Albi in Southern France). The Albigeois had been declared as heretics by the pope. The king of France dispatched an army, led by Simon de Montfort, to curb the heretism (and also by the way to gain a new province). Many « heretics » were killed, some of them were made prisoners. One of his officers asked Simon de Montfort what he should do with the prisoners. He is quoted to have said : « Kill them all, God will recognize His followers » - « Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens ». May be the quote is apocryphal, but the net result of this crusade was that the kingdom of France had gained a new province, with of course some casualties in the king's army – may be a couple of hundred soldiers - I do not know.

PS : You are right, the manner used by the French diplomacy was wrong and I fully understand that many Americans were hurt and therefore resentful. But this does not entitle you to make "below the belt" attacks.

[terry]

3rd Column:

IM NOT SCREAMING!

Actually, I don't quite see where I am screaming. Perhaps you are just becoming angry reading comments you do not agree with. As usual, my specific arguments were ignored. I asked was Chirac coddling a dictator? Did Chirac not help prop up a brutal regime? Did Chirac try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Was that so wise? All I heard in response to these questions were crickets chirping.

Well, that's not entirely true. I received the usual anti-French accusations. That does not work on me. Please sell your wares elsewhere. If you do not have a direct response to my arguments, I merely assume you cannot answer them.

Anne:

The subject of the article was Chirac leaving and his accomplishments. I found it amusing that opposing the invasion was a major triumph for him. Was it? I made specific arguments that Chirac was propping up a brutal dictator. Do you have any response to my arguments or do you wish to take the intellectually lazy route of calling me anti-French and saying the USA is not popular so I am right? I just love when people says America is unpopular so I must be right. Back when Reagan was President and my country was defending Europe from the Soviet threat, hundreds of thousands of lefties came out into the street protesting the hard line we took against the Soviet Union. The USA was very unpopular then too. Well, the hard line worked and the wall fell. Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. Conformity and popularity might be the standard followed among a group of 14 year old girls but it does not make it the proper choice.

Marine:

Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies. That's why they need our help. Every so often, though, we do have to come to the aid of a democratic country that cannot defend itself. I can think of at least one.

[anthony mayer]

And, yes, Marine, and you yourself forget that, aside of the military support provided by de La Fayette against France's old colonial rival, most of those revolutionaries who founded what is now called the United States were also Brits.

And, as for Chirac's opportunistic US-scapegoating and Anglophobism, a convenient way to distract from France's own declining influence in the wolrd.

[Josh]

Cheer Iraq este Chirac should be credited for standing against the likes of Adolf Hitler, invading a sovereign nation. Why the US supports Saddam previously eventhough he's such a brutal dictator. and now invade and hanged him when this friendship gone.

[Sherry]

Valentin,

Agreed Terry should move pass this one. But, can I ask you to drop your negative generalisations of all Americans as you said 'all americans here are the same, just like George Bush, they would rather die or turn the world into ashes than admit mistake'? ...Fact is, Terry is now in the minority in terms of opinion on Iraq - the majority of Americans now disagree with the war, believe it was a mistake and a disaster, and believe that we should pull out. In addition, Bush's approval ratings in the States are now at only 28% (I believe Dick Cheney's are in single digits ;-). Seems that many Americans have come to the same conclusions as you (even if the Bush Administration hasn't).

Terry,

Another question out of curiosity, you state 'Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies'...If this is your logic, why are we not intervening militarily in Zimbabwe, Darfur (Sudan), Cuba, etc? When, according to your logic, would be the right point to intervene?

[marine]

Anthony,
I was refering to this list of countries: Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Korea, Serbia (kind of), Lebanon, Panama.
Let's say it was a bit of irony and not totally right since South Korea is a democracy, Lebanon tries hard and Serbia may take this way (their last nationalistic government doesn't convince me much).

I don't believe military interventions bring many positive outcomes for freedom and democracy in our time. I don't believe one can force democracy into countries. However I acknowledge that sometimes the international community has no other solution, we're really at the beginning of peace building and peace restoring policies, we have not understood yet how to do that properly. Even though, sometimes it works, the UK did pretty well in Sierra Leone.

But to give Somalia as an example of the good results of military intervention, I find that hilarious (or desperating if you look at the situation of this country).

Thanks, I am well aware that many Brits founded the US.

[Donald]

Chirac will be remembered for Iraq?

Chirac was respondible for building a French nuclear reactor for Saddam. With the First Gulf War (which the French supported) where would that have gone if the Israelis hadn't destroyed that French reactor? Saddam would almost certainly have had a nuclear bomb, or at least a dirty bomb by 1991.

The U.S. was wrong to use military force in Iraq without United Nations approval, the French say. The French did not complain when they wanted NATO (that is, the United States) to use military force against the Serbs after the French allowed 250,000 innocent civilians to be killed in and around Sarajevo on European soil. And the French wanted this military intervention WITHOUT approval from the United Nations! (Russia and China would not have agreed to it.) Then the French wanted the United States to come in again WITHOUT approval from the United Nations to save Kosovo in 1999. But when it came to Iraq, the United States should have gotten United Nations approval according to the French!!

A blatant double standard.

The Europeans (France, Germany and Britain) failed completely in their negotiations to get Iran to not build nuclear weapons. They have been as successful in this as they were in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990's.

The Europeans don't like the thought of Iran having the bomb. If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, by now Saddam would have been working on the bomb to counter the one from Iran. There would have been a nuclear arms race going on right now in that part of the world.
The Europeans conveniently don't mention this fact when they condemn the U.S. for invading Iraq. If they think they have problems now with Iran, they would have had double the problems with Iraq (Saddam had already invaded 2 other countries and had used WMD against his own people and the Iranians). The U.N. inspectors had no mandate to destroy Iraqi infastructure like laboratories and factories for building nuclear weapons once the inspectors had left. The infrasture and scientists were left in place to start up all over again.

It is about time the Europeans shouldered some of the responsibility that they have always given to the United States to do like stop the killing in Bosnia and Kosovo. If their methods worked, they would have been successful there and in their talks with Iran which have proved to be a complete failure.

It is a cheap shot to condemn the U.S. for its unilateral action (with Britain) when they wanted U.S. action in Southeastern Europe just a few years before. Where are the success stories of European diplomacy with Iran, or Kosovo or Serbia? If they can do better in the real world, let's see it. So far, within their own backyard (Bosnia and Kosovo) and Iran, they have completely failed.

It is easier to condemn than to do better.

[Louis Billerey]

The allegation that Chirac did'nt do very much is a point in his favour. You only need to contemplate the long list of bad mistakes made by the current Labour régime to come to the conclusion that masterly activity by the politicos who interfere in our lives would be a godsend.
From a pragmatic point of view it would seem that the conquest of Iraq has not been a good thing for the conquered. Whether it has been OK for the conquerors is not clear. There has'nt been a great deal of talk about how the Iraq oil industry has been doing recently. Nor much about the state of the National Museum in Baghdad.

[Maggie]

Hurrah !!! at last the Poseur is leaving.
Maybe now we will see him in court ! how fantastic that will be. Maybe he could return some of those 'gifts' he has reputed to have taken from his ' much beloved country .
Yes, I know it's wishful thinking, pigs will fly over the Elysee before that happens , no doubt.

[textibule]

As an American living in Albi for quite awhile now (site of the aforementioned Croisades Albigeoises), I feel like I gotta chime in here.

Looks like a post-mortem on Chirac has been hijacked by an American neocon France-basher who just can't resist reading/commenting on Charles' pertinent insights into France.

In the end, France and America have a lot in common: both have lost their way. As befits a great hyperpower, America's descent into incoherence causes much destruction and havoc everywhere. France's malaise is much better contained, the incoherence remains intramuros, and to compensate, the cheese and wine are still extraordinary.

What has been wrong in France has been wrong for quite awhile. Chirac was awful for France, a 12-year sleeping pill, and now France's long overdue awakening might just become possible.

The difficulty might be that one should move slowly for a little while after taking such a powerful sleeping potion as Chirac. But the mood is to change, reform. There will probably be some sprained ankles getting out of bed.

[terry]

The amusing thing about my first post was that I was only attacking Chirac policies. Some of you may wish to read it again. Slowly and carefully.

I'll ask the questions a third time. Was Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect business interests in France? Did he not try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Were these moral policies?

Those were the points of my original post. Any takers?

[Valentin]

Sherry,

You're right, I'm sorry, I was of course speaking about our favorite bunch of americans, Terry, Rocket, MCD and a couple more.
Polls in the US might show it differently, but here at least there are very few dissenting voices to the neocon ones.

[JuanE]

Terry,

Was Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect business interests in France? At the risk of endangering the French business interest with the US? At the time I think France had more business interest with the US than with Iraq, and those were at risk for his policy towards the war.
Did he not try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Dont know, guess he did, like Rumsfeld sold him chemical and biological weapons he did use. Have you forgotten Saddam was the west main ally against Iran?
Were these moral policies? After the two previous answers, you can answer that.

[Terry]

Juane:

You need to read up a bit. The project to build the iraqi reactor was Chirac's deal. Please inform me I can find support for your notion that Cheney sold bioligical and chemical weapons to Saddam.

My questions still stand. Was Chirac Saddam's poodle?

[sam]

Sounds like one of those "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" situations. Both France and the US are guilty of quite a bit if you look carefully. Maybe they can help eachother to move forward in a positive way.

[Terry]

Marine:

I did not say U.S. military intervention always works. I merely noted that we don't intervene just because of oil, which was your point. Our military intervention certainly worked in Germany, France, Italy and Japan.

As for "forcing" democracy on people, perhaps you forget that Saddam ruled by the gun. That is how he achieved power. He forced his rule over the people of Iraq by killing anyone opposed to him. So, we are not forcing democracy on Iraq. We have removed Saddam and now we are giving Iraqis the chance to choose how to run their lives. The high turnout of Iraqis at the polls was quite telling. They may have a long way to go but at least they now have a chance for freedom.

Again, people like textibule don't respond to arguments. They just call people names like "neocon" and "frenchbasher". How intellectually lazy.

[Tom]

The world is a much more dangerous place today than it was 25, 50, or even 200 plus years ago. I am not confident that Chirac really understood this fact. WMDs are no longer comic book stories, but are today's reality. Democracies, including France, must face this fact. As an American, I am painfully disappointed in our President for not managing and prosecuting the Iraq war in a manner that would have resulted in a more expedited democracy.
Regardless of my own disappointment with the war, I am almost as disappointed in Chirac's antics. Chirac deliberately and with vigor proceeded to poke a finger in the eye of France's biggest protector and historical friend. If this action was not enough, he then foolishly acted like a proud peacock. This was not cool. We Americans are very thick skinned and generous people, and we are very proud of our historical efforts to protect our friends.. to have a friend act in this manner gave us a great deal of heartburn. Democractic Countries can disagree, but you do not poke each other in the eye. You need all eyes clear to watch for the next terroritst attack. I think both countries will be better off with new presidents. Let us just hope that we can quickly re-establish a bond of friendship and focus on the goal of peace, prosperity and "equality" for everyone in this world...including all French citizens.
Tom

[LEGION]

Give me a break! The fwench only came in at the end of the Revolutionary War when we started winning. They did not come to help us, but to help themselves and hurt Britian! Layfayette was a laughingstock in his home country. Benjamin Franklin begged for years for help with no takers. You barely helped us in the Revolutionary War, but we saved your a** in TWO World Wars. You owe us BIG TIME!
Story in the traitor NY Slimes about how Saddam raped the southern marshes of his country- slaughtering the Marsh Arabs, to drill for oil, not mentioned it was done at the behest and fortune of fwwench Oil Companies! No Blood for Oil is their cry!! Torture chambers, rape rooms, mass genocide, invading other countries, no problem, as long as they get their oil, the fwwench, germ mans, and commie chinks and ruskies are all complicit!!! TRAITORS to all of mankind. Rwanda, Somolia, Darfur region all go unheeded because of these scum. USA, only decent country in the world, thats why all flock to us. Although with the traitor demo-rats hamstringing us for political gain, we may go down. By the way, Chemical weapons and a nuclear program WERE found in Iraq, but you won't find the mainstream traito press mentioning that. The museum in Iraq got 99.99% of its items back- the STAFF took the stuff home to keep it from being looted and it has been returned- go search on the internet to find those buried stories! Speaking of buried, sandstorms revealed the tips of buried fighter jets outside of Baghdad's airport fitted with illegal fwweench upgrades on them!!! Also, who cares who likes us- we are the boss of the world, the boss does whats right, not to do stuff to please the clueless employees, we we 'nice' under clit-ton, and we got the Koybar towers bombing, the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole attacked, yadda yadda yadda, nice guys finish last. So GIVE ME A BREAK with your foolish claptrap!

[rocket]

Valentin

"You're right, I'm sorry, I was of course speaking about our favorite bunch of americans, Terry, Rocket, MCD and a couple more.
Polls in the US might show it differently, but here at least there are very few dissenting voices to the neocon ones."

Once again dommage pour toi!

Who are you calling neocon and why is having an opposing opinion to yours considered to be neocon.

This is the same type of remarks that I got from my former French family (once upon a lifetime ago)when I didn't agree with their left leaning (voire communiste) views. Aren't you able to put into perpective that opinions may differ and responses can be more direct than what you allow yourself.

I am anything but a neocon and I'm not even sure you understand the full meaning of the word. In the last US election that I voted in I voted Clinton by the way. But in YOUR world if we don't agree with all things French we suddenly become neocons. Kinda like the Maginot line mentality. non?

[marine]

Terry,
I didn't write a word about oil or Irak. My point was more about the efficiency of military interventions to promote democracy, regardless of which country or organization is leading those interventions. Still, I agree sometimes there is no other solution, but it is likely that we disagree on when and why such intervention is necessary. Also, I failed to precise I was rather considering post cold war conflicts.

I agree with you, dictators generally use violence and force to reign.

[Sherry]

Terry,

You consistently accuse those on this board as being 'intellectually lazy' b/c they disagree with you. Well, I would also assert that it is intellectually lazy to make broad, stereotypical generalisations about 60 million people - such as "The French are not reknown for their foresight" or "It's okay if France (as usual) didn't not want to help with the heavy lifting" or "Patton once said he would rather have two German divisions in front of him rather than one French Division behind him. I think this sentiment expresses how many Americans now view France as an ally." In addition, your views are your views...how do you know what the views of Americans are on France as an ally? Any articles, surveys, etc you could share on this pt?

Secondly, you also said people here haven't responded to your questions. You also haven't responded my questions...so, I'll ask them again: you stated 'Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies'...If this is your logic, why are we not intervening militarily in Zimbabwe, Darfur (Sudan), Cuba, etc? When, according to your logic, would be the right point to intervene? Honestly curious to hear your point of view on this.

[Daniel Strohl]

Textibul,

I like your post and your pseudonym is quite funny.

You are right, Charles insights into France are always pertinent and I would add, with a subtle dose of humour which makes the reading of his chronicles so pleasant. Politics are often boring, but not with Charles

A commentary to your formulation « the incoherence remains intramuros » : Thanks God, we are lucky to have a rather big country relative to the number of inhabitants – that means that the walls are far away and thus, the reverberation on them is somewhat attenuated ... But unfortunately the walls are porous.

Sam,

You have made the point – next time, I will address you as Solomon ...

[JuanE]

Terry

Did I mention Cheney?? As far as i know rumsfeld went to Iraq and found Saddam to be a wonderful guy to work with. What happened to the questions you mentionned in your post? Do you actually think Chirac opposed the war in Iraq because of the business interests there, at the risk of endangearing the massive business interest with the US?
And are you interested in a frank discussion or in point scoring?

[Dominique]

Donald,

"It is easier to condemn than to do better"

I would also say :

"It is easier to condemn than to do worse"

[Alain]

An interesting shift with some Americans here and now re. Chirac's opposition to the war in Iraq. They no longer maintain it was a good thing to go to war and the French were appeasers and traitors and surrender monkeys, they were on the take (save for Terry) etc... but their new credo is "You didn't express your opposition in a polite and friendly way".
Like the American diplomacy of Rice and Powell were paragons of delicacy and subtleties...

To the Frenchies contributing here, Valentin, Dominique, Sandrine et les autres (save Robert Marchenoir):
LE TRUC de vos interlocuteurs anglo/américains c'est de s'adresser à vous comme des procureurs exigeant des réponses nettes et sans échappatoires des présumés délinquants qu'ils veulent confondre.
Toutes questions se rapportant au domaine économique dont la finalité is to make you toe the line in the good old fashion of imperialist minded peoples. Because you're different, you'll have to conform and submit to the American/British mindset!
Franck Schnittzger summerized this procédé best with Dominique some days ago with 3 questions (that he had carefully selected of course) regarding the GNP etc.
These people have only one criteria in their mind: economics as seen through their lenses...
Don't expect to have a pleasant, sophisticated conversation with these people whose ultimate goal is not to accept your arguments like they demand you accept theirs, like it or not, but in the end of the day they want to rub your nose in the mud.
Up to you Frenchies not to play into their hands...

[Valentin]

"Franck Schnittzger summerized this procédé best with Dominique some days ago with 3 questions (that he had carefully selected of course) regarding the GNP etc.
These people have only one criteria in their mind: economics as seen through their lenses..."

It's not for me to defend anyone but I'm certain Frank is sincere. His reasoning (and questions) were not a trap, but something that to him seemed perfectly logical, common sense and fair. And I believe he's right in what concerns the cost of the public services and so on.
My point of dissent is resumed by the idea that great economists never make great politicians. When one sees the world in a humanistic, idealistic way, things change completely. I'm all for Sarkozy's program and attitude, action, personal responsibilisation, fairness, a vivid, flexible economy and so on. Still economic success (at country or individual level) should not be a goal in itself.

"Up to you Frenchies not to play into their hands..."

When it's bashing and hostile, I prefer to say plainly that this is no way to debate, but trollish blogging.
When ideas worth discussing, I think we have to get involved, so that French(-ish :)) voices be heard too.
If instead of getting stuck in a set of rules, several viewpoints and perspectives are put in balance, I believe Frenchies can win debates too.

[Terry]

I am sorry. I can't keep up with all the French bashing accusations. I keep mixing everyone up.

Juane:

I meant Rumsfeld. Well, now that I have that right, where is your support taht Rumsfeld sold chemical and biological weapons.

Yes, I do think Chirac opposed the war because of French business interests. The first thing he did after the war was to plead with Washington to make sure the new Iraqi government guaranteed Saddam's debt.

Marine:

You are right. You did not mention oil. Daniel did. But the comment I made was in reply to what you posted.

Alaine:

Funny, I didn't use the words traitors, surrender monkeys or appeasers. Why don't you read my first post again and see what I actually said. You talked about a sophisticated conversation. I failed to see any traces of it in your post.

Sherry:

Read my post more carefully. I am not talking about the French people. But your government's policy. Specifically, Chirac's. As for your question, "why don't we invade Cuba?". Tell me, why should we? If you want my personal opinion, dictators are not sovereign. They rule by the gun. We (the free world) rule by the consent of the governed. We have the right to remove a dictator whenever it is in our strategic interest to do so. Provided, of course, that the liberated country is allowed self-determination. So why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it for laughs? Was it for oil? Was it for power? Bush could have taken the easy road like Chirac and done nothing. He would have been reelected, no problem. Instead, he risked his presidency and his reputation on Iraq because he believed Saddam posed a risk to the world.

Well, I've answered your question. Now let's get back on the subject, which is Chirac's exit. We'll do it a fourth time. Here's what I said:

If Chirac's greatest success was opposing the Second Gulf War, then his presidency should be deemed a complete failure. What was this great foreign policy success Chirac had in opposing the Second Gulf War? Did it stop the coalition from invading Iraq? No. Iraq was invaded and Saddam was removed. Chirac's policy demonstrated the futility of using the U.N. to resolve international disputes and that that U.N. resolutions are meaningless. (On second thought, perhaps Chirac did accomplish something useful).

All Chirac managed to do was coddle a dictator and destroy French-U.S. relations. Sending De Villepin around the world to make the U.S. look like the bad guy did nothing more than give Chirac's buddy Saddam the false illusion that he could avoid war because the coalition was seemingly diplomatically isolated. In the end, Chirac's "diplomacy" guaranteed the invasion.

The only reasoned argument I received to this post was from Pouet. He managed to give me an intelligent answer. I may not agree with all of it. But it was well thought out. He did not resort to name calling or Sherry's silly "more people agree with me now so I am right" argument.

P.S. In previous posts, Pouet convinced me not to fill my suitcase with food in France so I wouldn't have to spend a nickel there when I come later this month.

[trend]

Who is intolerant?
American, french, english??

Does the truth belong to one of these nationalities?

The next debate to follow!

Ps:(no relationship whith the political party, thanks!): Let us have idiots everywhere?

So many questions without answer!!!

Ps2 (bis): Chirac, I believe that I will miss you! (yes I acknowledge, I prefere beer rather than the "jogging"!)

[rocket]

Dominique

"It is easier to condemn than to do worse"

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Sandrine]

Alain,

J'avais bien compris cela ! And of course, it's easier for them because english is not our mother tongue.

Anyway, I find all these comments very interesting. What a fascinating discussion !!

[major tom]

Chirac was wrong about Irak. To get rid off Saddam was fair and morally unarguable. What was arguable and still is today, is the way Bush sold the war. Remember him on the aircraft: "Mission accomplished folks!" What Ronald Reagan would have done under the same circumstances? Think about it. He would have told the american people: "this is gonna be a long war. Be prepared for rough sufferings and hard fights. But this is America's mission to dispose Saddam Hussein."

The Bush family has totally destroyed the Republican party. It'll be hard for the GOP to win the 2008 elections. At least, the French will be able to celebrate a new political contest one year and a half after their own contest!

[richard jones]

Alain,

You are doing a great job pour l'institution de polarisation dans ce blog.
The situation is the following.
Most of the (so-called developed) world uses an economic system based on 'market forces' and todate and currently with reasonable success.
La France (l'exception) uses another system based more on state dirigisme which currently is not working very well.
The marketeers, and Mr. Schnittger is a very fair-minded, erudite member of that group, ask why this is happening to France and what does France believe she can do to improve things.
La France n'admet aucun tort dans leur système (not the moment to discuss the proselytisation of French dirigisme) and this is what causes the problem.
All France has to do is say pianississimo that not all is well and what can be done to fix it and thence how France's approach would temper the power of the market in the questioners world to the advantage of everybody including the questioners.

[Alain]

Sandrine,
You're right about the language issue. I didn't mention it in my comment fear it wouldn't have been sophisticated enough to Terry's taste...
You certainly have noticed, the French position, whatever it is, is next to always under scrutiny and attack, critized or mocked, sometimes in a light manner, sometimes less so. But in the end, the French participating are always put on a defensive line and, as you rightly pointed out, have to answer and fight back in the language of their opponents which is a definitive drawback for them.
Some have an astounding command of English (Dominique, Valentin, Marchenoir la cinquième colonne), some others less but nevertheless, it's like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
British/American fairness it's called...
Some English speakers here can speak French and spice their comments with a few words in our language but when it comes to being offensive (in the French meaning of the word) be sure they stick to their own language, it's so much more secure...

Valentin,
I've read this blog for a rather long time now and I know Franck Schnittzger is one of the most commandable participants (if not the most). My point focused just on one specific aspect of the usual trick used by many English speakers contributors here that he summarized best in my opinion in the comment I refered to.
In short, il faut se justifier de dire ce que l'on dit, de faire ce que l'on fait et finalement d'être ce que l'on est.
Finalement ça fait plaisir de voir combien ils nous aiment ces "Anglo-saxons" (ce n'est pas insultant contrairement à ce que nombre d'entre eux croient) qui souffrent pour nous de l'état "désatreux" de notre économie, combien ils voudraient nous voir nous épanouir dans une économie de marché (comme la leur, tiens, quelle coïncidence, sf. Richard Jones) parce qu'ils en sont persuadés, la France c'est à peu près la Corée du Nord en matière de dirigisme.
Ce qui leur fait mal pour nous par exemple, ce sont les 35 heures. A croire que c'est de leurs porte-feuilles et sur leur feuilles d'impôts que c'est financé. Que des millions de Français (restauration, bâtiment etc.) ne soient pas concernés par les 35 heures, qu'en fait les 35h c'est une moyenne sur une année avec des RTT compensatoire, que leur importe...
A l'origine les 35h avaient été instaurées en contrepartie de l'engagement par le privé (oui, le privé, cette force économique qui doit assurer le bonheur du genre humain) d'embaucher pour compenser le temps d'activité de ceux qui étaient déjà en place.
Ah, mais problème, le privé n'a pas joué le jeu... il a bien fait travailler 35h les salariés mais il les a fait travailler davantage. Les créations d'emplois que devait assurer le privé, eh bien non, le privé n'a pas assuré sa part du marché.
But now our British/American friends are happy: Sarkozy and his program of flexibility (why not d'ailleurs, I'm not opposed if it works) is at the helm. Do they know that Sarkozy certainly doesn't intend to suppress the 35h/week work but rather wants to loosen the conditions in which they apply? Now it will be free market economics in France (like it isn't already the case)...
Oh, but there may arise a little problem for the Brits. If we consider the British economy is now cruising at full speed and the French one is lagging behind (not that far, contrary to what they imagine), within some months of liberalisation (as they say) of the French assets and forces, France will soon take over UK in terms of GNP, employement etc. Too bad! How will our British friends do to teach their beloved French friends how to perform better? How will they do to pose as the ultimate model the whole world should emulate?
But don't worry. When it comes to nagging at the French the Brits are never short of imagination... It's been their daily pastime for some centuries now (Hastings anyone?). And it's kind of a private affair Americans are kept out. And it feels so good to have the feeling of being superior to the French...
Why they don't take that pain with the Germans, the Italians and others is an interesting phenomena...

[Alain]

I may have not given my name for the above comment.
Alain wrote it.

[Sherry]

Well Terry,

I never said "more people agree with me now so I am right" - don't know where you got that one from! What I said was that your views are your views and you should represent them as such, not as those of the American people. Fact is, however, that American opinion has turned on this war and that's not something that should be ignored by our political leaders or anyone else (including you). I felt it was important to point that out as others on this board (and perhaps even you) are unaware.

As for the reasons for using military force against a country, you sir were the one that stated 'Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies'. But, now you mention 'strategic interests'. Aha! Finally the truth comes out...it's not really only about making the world a better, more peaceful place huh? Not saying this is a right or wrong approach for a government to take, but it is the reality of how these choices are made.

On your statements about the French, I'm afraid they did come across as generalisations about the French people. So, perhaps next time, you should take a bit more care in how you present your arguments.

On now ex-President Chirac, I think you've taken the discussion here and basically pinned his entire legacy on his opposition to the Iraq war, so you have been the one to move the discussion here from fully/properly analysing his legacy. You've said nothing about how his tenure has affected the French people and the health of the country - economically, socially, etc. I would say that his tenure was a disappointment mostly b/c to me he failed to do what he promised to do when he of took office, which I believe was to 'repair the social fabric' of France (others please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this one). While the French may look favourably on his opposition to the war, there seems to be wide-spread disappointment here with the man, mostly, it appears, due to his failings domestically...

PS Obviously you didn't read my post(s) very clearly because I stated that I am an American ;-)

[John Gregory Flinn]

"The amusing thing about my first post was that I was only attacking Chirac policies.... Any takers?"

Yes, Terry I'll have a try!

In fact Chirac's policies are not always evident.
For the most part he seems to have continued the strategy set in place by de Gaulle and others. As a consequence he has presided over a France that has measurably flourished.
France has a fast rail system, TGV, which the envy of most of the world and that, in particular California would love to emulate (except they don't have enough windmills to reliably supply the electricity....)!
France has an Electricity-supply industry almost totally independent of fossil fuels. For what it's worth this enables France to claim just about the lowest - of the develped nations - carbon emissions per head of population.
France with other European partners has developed an Aerospace Industry which is a serious rival to Boeing and other US maufacturers.
France is a lead player in a 'privileged partnership' with Germany in the development of European economic power, that challenges the American world hegemony and is a cultural competitor to American globalism.

Where policy decisions can be ascribed to Chirac, as President or Prime Minister they have turned out to be rather quixotic, and hardly produced the results intended. (Unless he is a sublimely clever strategist).
There was that 'contre-temps' with Mitterand about Al Khomeni being repatriated from Paris to Tehran, which led to the downfall of the Shah and changed the balance of power in the middle-east.
Then he refused to debate with le Pen on 2002 after the first round of that Presidential election. The disdain he showed probably helped push a chunk of le Pen's suppporters to Sarkozy this time.
There is his “non” about Iraq....
He introduced the referendum for the EU constitution, and was visibly chagrined with that “Non”.
He may live to regret his decision to allow a referendum on Turkey's entry to the EU.
In domestic affairs when 'push comes to shove' he has usually caved in to pressure from the Unions or Students, or almost any determined protest.

I do not know exactly what involvement he had with the supply of the French experimental nuclear reactor to Iraq. But I do know that the Iraqis did not have the resources nor technology to extract the fissile uranium from the fuel rods even to make a dirty bomb.
So this claim is just part of the WMD myth!
Israel's attack on it is hardly to be applauded since if Iraq did have any such weapons Saddam probably would have used them after that.

Chirac's manner in saying 'Non' about Iraq is thought to have been the problem. Maybe so, but don't forget that President Eisenhower totally humiliated the Franco-British expedition in Suez in 1956, and forced their withdrawal. So, it works both ways sometimes.

[Terry]

Sherry:

I believe spreading democracy is a strategic interest. Especially, when it is only a matter of time until some fanatic sets off a nuclear bomb in a city.

You said:

Agreed Terry should move pass this one....Fact is, Terry is now in the minority in terms of opinion on Iraq - the majority of Americans now disagree with the war, believe it was a mistake and a disaster, and believe that we should pull out.

Should I pass "on this one" because I am in the minority? That is not an argument. It is simply "I am right because more people agree with me."

Sherry, you have again skillfully avoided the arguments of my original post. My original post questioned whether Chirac's opposition to Iraq policy was really a big success. Judging by the responses, Charles was correct that the French certainly believed it was and love him for it. But was his opposition really a success? We'll try again. Did Chirac's obstruction at the U.N. stop the war? Did it not demonstrate the futility of resolving disputes through the U.N.? Did it not demonstrate that U.N. resolutions are meaningless? Wasn't Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect French business interests in Iraq (see my link)? Was it wise for Chirac to try to build a nuclear power plant for Iraq?

Your responses tell me that you either cannot or do not want to address the specific arguments I made.

Alain:

Your english is quite qood. Post away! I might not always agree with what you say but it is never poorly written. We can quibble on a definition now and then but I think it's bad form to sneer at anyone's writing. Especially, when it's not his first language.

What does gall me (sorry, I couldnt resist the pun) is when some resort to the tactic of calling names like "french basher" or make the silly "argument" that "I am right because more people agree with me". Those tactics are used by those who are unwilling, and more often, unable to win a debate with ideas.

[Valentin]

"Why they don't take that pain with the Germans, the Italians and others is an interesting phenomena..."

Because there's always been a certain rivalry between the two sides of the Channel - which d'ailleurs je trouve tout à fait passionnante.
The key is to not let ourselves closed inside the other's set of rules. American neocons have a certain aggressive style where you understand all they want is scoring points and knocking down the opposer - no matter how.
On the contrary, this is not the case at all on the other side of the Channel, and the post of John Gregory Flinn is a perfect example.

On the other hand, I can't help noting how many (very good)English-speaking French jumped in on the Iraq issue.
My (rhetorical) question: WHY get involved on such a clearly provocative and offensive (in the english sense) post, and never say a word on political or economical issues calmly and politely discussed before (leaving Dominique and a few others alone and motivating my post about the omnipresence of the Anglo-Saxon vision).

[Valentin]

On Chirac: I've been amazed by the similarities with Sarkozy: political animal, creating his own party, working against the man in power, deploying an incredible energy in whatever he did, struggling for years to finally win the power.
I suspect this came a bit late for Chirac.

As to his last 5 years in power, we can note the unemployment down at 8%, and a continuous growth, even if rather small. Hard attempts at reforming the social security, the pensions and flexibilizing the economy, without much success - but still a progress has been made. The CNE has been accepted, the pensions are half reformed, the social security is on its way, the work of Borloo is remarkable.
The pass to the internet age is made (with France much in advance compared to other countries), the living standards are however improved (even if by little).

Chirac could not be directly involved in everythhing, but he was supervizing nonetheless, and ultimately responsible.
He limited on giving "big orientations", and left an impression of hesitations and even absence sometimes.
But there were many things accomplished these years which are peculiarly overlooked - or assigned to this or that minister.

Despite his previous prime-minister energy, once president, Chirac seemed to become a sort of Queen of England. He seemed to completely lose his past energy and determination.
Maybe he actually meant to be the monumental figure symbolizing France, a Guardian of the Republic.

Or maybe it's just just the age...

[Valentin]

One last word on Chirac.
Focusing on his judiciary affairs is pointless. Put in perspective, they are ridiculous (a few plane tickets and so on).
He can't be labeled as corrupt, and he doesn't compare with the Mitterrand scandals, with Clinton pardoning the fugitive crook Mark Rich, or with the Cash-For-Honours scandal in Britain.
I don't say he's snow-like clean, but all must be put in perspective. What happens presently is we call in French "acharnement". And when I know the hatred leftists had for him, and the penetration Left has in press, Justice and so on, I'm not surprised.

[Frank Schnittger]

Question: Why do many Americans and some British dislike Chirac so much?

Answer: Because they know he was right on Iraq.

[Sherry]

No Terry...you can argue whatever you like. You have every right to think the way you think. You are not necessarily 'wrong' nor am I necessarily 'right'. It's a matter of opinion. My point to Valentin was that he was made a statement that implied that all Americans here think as you do (which, to his credit, he apologised for implying). I was simply pointing out that that wasn't the case.

I didn't address your question b/c frankly I believe you have distracted us from the topic at hand which was Chirac's success (or lack of success) as president of France. Iraq was simply one decision, one act that was made during his tenure. Frankly, others here have done a much better job (e.g. Valentin, John Gregory Flinn, etc) of addressing that question. However, if you must have a reponse to your questions, I'll oblige:

- Did Chirac's obstruction at the U.N. stop the war? No, why are you even asking this question...it's irrelevant at this pt as we're now 4 yrs into the war.
- Did it not demonstrate the futility of resolving disputes through the U.N.? No
- Did it not demonstrate that U.N. resolutions are meaningless? See answer to previous question
- Wasn't Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect French business interests in Iraq (see my link)? Don't think so
- Was it wise for Chirac to try to build a nuclear power plant for Iraq? No

Great. Can we move on now and actually take more of a wholistic approach to evaluating the man's presidency rather than going around the 'was the Iraq war justified or not' mill again and again? I think you've made your point Terry...

P.S. I think when you go on your now famous trip to Paris, you may want to ask the people you meet what they really think of Chirac...I think you may be surprised by the answers you get.

[MatureCamembert]

Terry, you are very con-batif.

[Valentin]

Rocket : "I am anything but a neocon and I'm not even sure you understand the full meaning of the word. In the last US election that I voted in I voted Clinton by the way. But in YOUR world if we don't agree with all things French we suddenly become neocons."

Unfortunately we don't see bloggers' email address anymore, but I'll try to make my response to Rocket as brief as possible - since totally off topic.

Rocket, I don't know you personally, so any judgement I allowed myself to pass upon you is strictly limited to your contributions here. Consequently, your vote in the US has little to do with it, and your family history even less.
Even the neocon label, I'll agree it's not exactly in the generally-accepted definition - I needed it because (fortunately) all americans here do not share neocons' stand on Iraq. Hence "neocon" describes the Bush team attitude about the war and with it, a way of being self-righteous, imposing one's opinion, never admitting mistakes (even when they prove catastrophic) and punching the adversary instead of debating.

Now, you may of course not recognize yourself in this either, in which case I'll be happy to apologize again - provided you claim that out loud ! :)

(your former family may have been the kind of French that call Sarkozy a neocon, which is absolutely silly, but does not mean you can't actually speak like one on certain issues)

[Terry]

Sherry:

Your arguments overwhelm me. I am convinced. The way you say "No." and "Don't think so" is too compelling.

You have convinced me. Chirac was not Saddam's poodle. He was a man of great vision and a true statesman. The way he told eastern european countries to shut up if they wanted to get into the EU was a master stroke of deft diplomacy. Where can I get a oversized, fluffy Chirac doll?

I didnt think you had an intelligent response.

[Pierre]

Deft diplomacy Terry? I'm sure the 1.2bn Chinese will be delighted to know that you consider it your right to overthrow their president at any time you see fit.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, their influence in the region would now be sufficient to weigh in against Iran with the threat of military intervention. So the invasion has made the world more, not less dangerous.

The intellectual laziness to which Terry refers consists in taking three entirely separate categories, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons and lumping them together to form a new group to be used as a banner for going to war. On what basis can the damage caused by biological weapons (practically zero), chemical (remote in history or strictly located, as in the north of Iraq) and nuclear (potentially life-threatening for all, the cause of 50 years of european stand-off) be compared? A morally unsubstantial argument permitted George Bush to waver, when absolute precision was (and still is) required. The case for replacing Hussein could stand on its own merits, ever since the iraqi invasion of Kuweit. The false premise forced true democrats to react against a neoconservative argument founded on permanent warfare. The creeping nature of the american intervention was, and is, apparent: no absolute victory is in any way necessary. Was the attack of September 2001 prosecuted with weapons of mass destruction? Or was the destruction minor? Would it not have been wiser of the US to make war on the airlines? And Israeli tanks in the Lebanon? What type of destruction do they wreak, exactly?

[Terry]

CoN-batif? N'est pas combatif?

Hmmm. I wonder what "con" means en francais? Is camembert trying to slip one by on me. So many nice meanings for that word. I wonder which one he meant. Oh, so clever. Tres amusant.

[Terry]

Generally, a "neocon" is a liberal who has turned conservative. He usually believes that force should be used to spread democracy. Neocon has become a codeword (at least in the U.S.) for "jewish conservative". Hence, why you will always hear people say "Neocons, like Wolfowitz..." along with a string of other Jewish names. It's a lovely yet subtle way for certain lefties in the U.S. to express their anti-semitism without having to say "kikes or sheenies who support the war". I guess you would call them zionists in Europe.

I know Valentin didn't mean it this way. I think "pro-war" works.

Rocket: You voted for Clinton? I always admired your posts. Say it ain't so.

[rocket]

Terry

Only voted the first time for him and not sure that I even mailed my ballot in time.

[Valentin]

"Hmmm. I wonder what "con" means en francais? Is camembert trying to slip one by on me. So many nice meanings for that word. I wonder which one he meant. Oh, so clever. Tres amusant."

LOL about time someone gets what he deserves 'ey :)

[Terry]

Pierre:

You said:

Had the US not invaded Iraq, their influence in the region would now be sufficient to weigh in against Iran with the threat of military intervention. So the invasion has made the world more, not less dangerous.

Oh really? Military threats don't work unless you plan to carry them through. That's why we had to go into Iraq. There was a UN resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq. But Chirac undermined any hope that the threat of force would make Saddam back down by running around the world being Saddam's lawyer.

And let's suppose we didnt attack Iraq. We'd have the same nonsense with Iran. Impotent UN resolutions calling for the cessation of the nuclear program. The threat of U.N. sanctions. Inspectors being thrown out. Fruitless negotiations between Europe and Iran. And when it came time to make good on our threats of force, what would France do? The same thing it did in Iraq. Campaign against U.S. military intervention. Does this sound familiar?

That's why the Patton quote was relevant. He wasn't saying the French were cowards. He was saying that France was an unreliable ally. Chirac undercut any chance we had to make the military threat credible by giving Saddam diplomatic cover. Wonderful statemanship, I must say.

[thierry]

Terry,here is a text you should read
http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html
Written by one of your fellow countryman

Regards

Thierry,Paris,France

[rocket]

Thierry

Read the History of the French and Indian War in North America

The French lost that one so don't give us some loser's interpretation of history.

Do you know why they lost it with even the most superior Army in the world.

Because they had to wait for battle orders from Paris. Funny how little things have echanged in almost 300 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

[Valentin]

"The French lost that one so don't give us some loser's interpretation of history."

Such a typical neocon response:
avoiding the meaning of the site Thierry gave, choosing certain parts of a text to "prove" things, and of course using invective.

The wikipedia page also narrates episodes like this one:
"the disaster at the Monongahela, where the French and natives, though heavily outmanned and outgunned ... used superior tactics ... to gun down and rout the British."

and concludes that William Pitt's leadership, and France's continued neglect of the North-American theater, turned the tide in favor of the British.

Needless to say, the tide turned again when France massively and successfully helped the newly born US gain independence.
Which is a debt the US often and conveniently forget, only to remember the 20th century wars.
Speak about morals...

[Peter Mason]

Frank,

I can'tcomment on why Americans dislike Chirac so much but I'd say that you are wrong about the Brits. Most disliked/distrusted him before the invasion of Iraq. His role has always been the furtherance of France and it's influence and this by definition meant a fundamental and overt anti-anglosaxonism. One tends not to like one's antagonist.

[Terry]

Thierry:

You have a great name.

Thanks for the text. Unfortunately, I was in on vacation when you posted it. It was a pretty interesting read but not very compelling. Although, you were posting to something I must have said weeks ago in regard to another article.

I thank Rocket for standing in for me while I was gone.