The Hindu : The consequences of disagreeing

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 25, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The consequences of disagreeing

By Vaiju Naravane

The main thrust of U.S. moves against France is likely to be political... Paris could be sidelined, both within NATO and in regular transatlantic consultations between America and Europe.

JANUARY 20, 2003, the day the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, first brandished the threat of a French veto in the United Nations Security Council, was the beginning of the worst Franco-U.S. crisis in fifty years. France has always been perceived as being awkward and difficult, a sullen and sulky ally. But an ally nevertheless. For, when it came down to the wire, France always came through to take its place beside the United States, as was the case in the last Gulf War in 1991 or the NATO plan to attack the erstwhile Yugoslavia over Kosovo.

This time around, it was different. Ideology, not just economic interests, appeared to be driving the French, just as it appeared to be driving messianic neo-conservatives in America. The French were, and remain, profoundly convinced that a single superpower should not be allowed to bend the world to its will. Hawks in America, and these days the doves are out for a prolonged roost, were inhabited by the irresistible temptation to play god in the Middle East with visions of a new, democratised zone stretching across the Persian Gulf where Israel could live in security. A collision was inevitable.

Le droit d'ingérence or the right to interfere in another country's internal affairs — a doctrine first enunciated by France's Bernard Kouchner — has been taken to heart by Washington's neo-conservative zealots. But implicit in the Frenchman's formulation was the assumption that any decision to remove tyrants or dictators on humanitarian grounds would be taken collectively, through a consultative process at the U.N. The phenomenal power of the U.S. and the reductionist views of those who govern it today turned Mr. Kouchner's complex and sophisticated vision of a new world order based on the respect of human rights into a simple, one-line formula: might is right, or, `have gun, will shoot'.

So, a full-blown crisis has erupted between France and the U.S. over Iraq. Washington sees Paris as having "betrayed" a friend and an ally. France says differences between allies are permissible, that one can "agree to disagree''. When questioned about possible U.S. action against France, the President, Jacques Chirac, was both dismissive and reassuring. Once the Iraq crisis is over, Europe will see the folly of its divisions and move towards greater unity and cohesion, he said. France is a member of the WTO and a member of the European Union. Neither can allow the U.S. to impose unilateral punitive sanctions against another member-state, he argued.

In recent weeks, France, realising that it had perhaps gone too far, has begun to backtrack. There has been fierce criticism of Mr. Chirac at home, especially within his own conservative formation, the UMP. Influential MPs, usually known to support Mr. Chirac, have been harsh in their assessment, saying France must bear in mind its "very close relationship" with the U.S. Given France's capacities as a second-rung power, it should not over-reach itself. Continued defiance of the U.S. would be foolhardy and counter-productive.

So ten days ago, Mr. Chirac called his U.S. counterpart. The conversation was reportedly "frosty". The French described the talk as "positive", while the Americans said it was "professional". In a clear conciliatory gesture, the French suggested that the NATO forces be deployed in Iraq to replace the Anglo-American forces. The French would be willing to take part. Let bygones be bygones, the French President appeared to suggest.

Washington does not see it quite that way. Last Tuesday, at a high-level meeting, chaired by Stephen Hadley, the number two of the U.S. National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and which included top officials from the Pentagon as well as from the office of the U.S. Vice-President, Dick Cheney, in Washington, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and his spokesman, Richard Boucher, were blunt. Yes, there will be consequences. Yes, the consequences could be serious. Mr. de Villepin who was in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday as part of a three-nation Middle East tour, called Gen. Powell seeking clarification of the remarks. Gen. Powell reportedly did not mince his words, although he did not go into the details of what the "consequences" could be.

Experts in France say the Bush administration's anti-French measures could be more political than economic. The U.S. clearly feels that France should say goodbye to the monies it was owed by Iraq before the war erupted. It is also likely that France cannot hope to win any of the reconstruction contracts in that country. But France quite likely will fight back, at least to protect the oil interests of its giant, TotalFinaElf, which has sunk billions of dollars into Iraqi oil wells. America will also attempt to hit direct French exports to the U.S., although because of WTO rules, it might not be easy. Already, traditional French industries such as winemaking, luxury goods, perfumes, high-fashion articles and tourism are feeling the pinch of a U.S. boycott. Top restaurants in Paris frequented by wealthy Americans and usually booked up weeks in advance have tables going a-begging. Departmental stores fear a dismal turnover this year.

Terminating U.S. Government contracts with French firms implanted in America — and there are about 2000 of them — would only result in unemployment in the U.S. and the Bush administration would be chary of doing that with an election looming large. The main thrust of U.S. moves against France is likely to be political. It would like to make an example of France, show the world what happens when an independent-minded, second-rung nation dares defy the might and power of America. Paris could be sidelined, both within NATO and in regular transatlantic consultations between America and Europe. The U.S. officials have said that they might consider bypassing the North Atlantic Council, NATO's governing body of which France is a member, and conduct business through the Defence Planning Committee that France quit in 1966. They would also like to dilute Paris' role in regular consultations between the U.S. and Europe. Yet another suggestion has been to enlarge the select NATO "quad'' — that includes Britain, France, Germany and the U.S. — to include Spain, Italy and Poland.

Although there has been a slight lowering of tensions with the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, downplaying the idea of "punishing" France, it is clear that the rift is serious. Washington's latest snub was the rejection of the French proposal to suspend, not lift, the sanctions on Iraq. Only a total lifting of the sanctions will do, the White House said. There is a belief that Washington's zeal in dealing particularly severely with Paris while letting off Moscow and Berlin with mild warnings is the tip of yet another iceberg — a cynical design to weaken Europe by isolating and hounding France.

A France that would have to fight back with one arm tied behind its back would eminently suit American ends. The French are going ahead with a meeting on European security in Brussels that has succeeded in attracting besides themselves, only Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. Greece has apparently backed out. But the fight could have gone out of Paris and it is possible the meeting will be a damp squib.

Washington has long viewed the possible emergence of a strong, unified Europe with a common defence, security and foreign policy, with a mixture of alarm and distrust. Such a body would directly challenge the relevance of NATO and the absolute supremacy of the U.S. France has been the one renegade country that has pushed for a separate European military entity. The obvious way of sabotaging a strong, unified Europe is by driving a wedge in the Franco-German combine and among the other second-level players such as Spain, Italy and Portugal.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Rising intolerance

An unnecessary strike

Sri Lanka and India's security

The consequences of disagreeing