MILNET
Analysis Understanding
the French - The Need for a Voice, 8/02/2007
According to Arnaud de La Grange writing in Le Figaro, In 1960, Michel
Debre, prime minister to Charles DeGaulle woke his children upon
the event of the first French nuclear test proclaiming, "Today, France
has a voice again!"
This statement underlines the policies of France in the last decade
more than ever before. To understand France requires
understanding the post World War II calamity that is in essence, the
problem of Europe in general.
Europe relied upon the U.S. to destroy Hitler, and then had to accept
monies from the U.S. for
reconstruction. Then for decades Europe relied upon the U.S. for
their protection, because they didn't (any many believe still don't)
have the intestinal fortitude
to stand up for themselves nor once again, the funds necessary to build
the weapons and armies necessary to hold of the Soviets. This was
all a direct result of
capitulation to Hitler, or the appeasement of Hitler by the likes of
Chamberlain and his monarch friend in the U.K., yet somehow this has
become a problem created by America.
The Europeans have been fighting to make themselves known as world
leaders ever since the end of WWII. And frankly, they simply
haven't got there
yet. The reason for this is that they haven't found the courage
yet, nor have they engaged in world issues as leaders should -- by
embracing them and taking action. Rather they have tried to
ignore or placate, both activities which are useless and signal a
weakness to those who love to take advantage of the weak. Namely
the Jihadists in the world who see such weakness as invitation to come
in
and conquer.
Witness the continued attacks in Europe carried out by Muslim
Extermists over
the last six years compared to American and Australian responses to
Jihadists attacks and the lack of attacks subsequent to 9/11 in either
country.
Having pointed the hand of derision at Europe, I must also take a
moment to praise the English. Even die-in-the-wool liberal Gordon Brown
of the U.K. appears to be taken aback by European truculance and
irresponsibility now that he is having to live as the prime focus of
European resistance to the Jihad. Perhaps a few briefings have
made reality sink in.
The French too may be headed for a little more active anti-terror
participation -- indeed may jump into the War on Terror with both feet.
It is not that they haven't seen the signs. With one of the
largest immigrant Muslim populations, and several events in country
where young Muslim Extremists have torched cars to express their
displeausure
with the government, Muslim extremism takes a real effort to ignore,
even for the French. Now however, the French are coming to
realize it is not
just rebellion against the government, but a total dissatisfaction with
the people the Muslim extremists are living amongst. Still, some
politicians in France are buoyed by the fact that they haven't had
their 9/11 yet. Spain and England, of course,
understand the dangers of ignoring the terrorists. Perhaps France
will get the idea before their 9/11 like experience comes home.
Today France operates nuclear armed submarines and has the ability to
put nuclear weapons in the air aboard aircraft. A small nuclear
power, yes, but they are not shy to iterate the rationale. Even
Chirac, the flaming liberal anti-American proclaimed that rogue nations
should be aware that France will not simply stand by without
retaliating should someone stir the nuclear ire of the Republic.
Thus, if one believes that the success of France's nuclear
weapons program gave that country a new voice in world affaris, then
one also has to wonder when and to whom that voice speaks.
So far, it does
not appear France is engaged in the War on Terror to any large
degree. There are exceptions to that statement and I'll take a
moment to point them out. First, France is participating in a naval
exercise that has gone on for some time in the seas around the Middle
East. Several French shops routinely join U.S., Italian, Belgium,
and U.K. ships as they swap in and out of Combined
Task Force 150, a naval patrol by NATO member nations which intends
to prevent smuggling of arms in and out of naval ports from North
Africa to the Middle East. Currently led by a British Admiral,
the leadership changes quite regularly and new ships are assigned to
duty in the patrol.
And of course, the French are fully engaged in the Algiers, where the
Muslim Extremists continue to play hell with society there. So it
is not as if they aren't aware of terrorism or its effects. So
then, why are the French so reluctant to join the American led War on
Terror in a big way?
And finally, the French DSGE is one of the finest anti-terrorist
organizations in the world. Unfortunately, Chirac and many of his
ministers held DSGE in check, hoping, perhaps to placate the terrorists
into finding more exciting targets then the more accomodating French.
I believe the French suffer from that post WWII mental disease derived
from that need for a bigger voice. And if becoming nuclear nation
didn't satisfy that power and lust for world importance, then what
will?
Let's compare the difference between the British and the French in
their relations with the U.S. First, the British not only were
thankful for U.S. help during the war, they embraced the war debt built
up during the conflict as well as the cleanup and rebuilding
afterward. Last year, the U.K. paid off the war debt. It
had assumed the debt was repayable, and took it as a duty to do
so.
Whereas the French have clearly resented American help during and after
the war, their war debt not only wholly unpaid, but virtually ignored.
Second, the U.K. has routinely engaged with the U.S. in strategic
activities worldwide, including one of the closest ties between
military and intelligence agencies seen between any to countries in the
world. Perhaps this is also an offshoot of WWII, where
cooperation was at its highest. If so, this is perhaps one of the
positive benefits of that conflagaration.
The French, however, have not embraced cooperation in any large
degree. Even during the astonishingly violent terrorist 60s when
anarchists and communist inspired terror gangs were spreading
throughout Europe, Frances DSGE gave only token cooperation to the U.S.
or European allies engaged in killing off that threat.
And French influence at that time led Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau
to ignore the problems there until finally draconian emergency
regulations were adopted when the threat promised to destroy the
government. Canadian French provinces still remain a hotbed for
Islamists looking for a place to hide from the War on Terror, the
French influence remaining a problem in overly liberal response to the
threat of terror. And that threat has crossed over into the U.S. in at
least one direct case, and several other cases lead back into the
Canadian French provinces as well.
Having said all that, there is good reason for the French, Italian and
German resentment of U.S. policy since World War II. While
engaged in protecting Europe from a Soviet Threat, the U.S. did at
times run rough-shod across the interface between Eastern and Western
Europe. As NATO's overwhelming strong partner, the U.S. weapons
arsenal outweighed that of all of Europe considerably. Ten to one
in some estimates. And U.S. lack of patience with less than
aggressive French or Italian leadership in U.N. activities that placed
American soldiers next to European allies in tough combat conditions
has all but vanished. Mogadishu comes to mind where U.S. soldiers
died due to indecision and lack of support of European U.N.
commanders. This has led to an American "we command our own"
attitude that further excerbates the U.S.-European military cooperation
problem.
For a nation of people concerned about their voice in the world, none
of the things I've discussed sits well with the French. Worse, the
post-Soviet period has been an
uneasy time for the French and this is witnessed by a set of
schizophrenic desires. The French want to play in the nuclear
game -- from nuclear subs to nuclear power plants. Siding with
the Russians, they have helped Iran and Iraq, as well as North Korea
and Libya. Along with German corporations, French aid and French
nuclear companies have helped
engineer, build and supply nuclear power plants in nations the majority
of the world's nations see as rogue nations.
Only lately have the Russians and French pulled back, however, many
analysts believe this is a temporary respite -- the French, German, and
Russian economies are far too fragile to ignore the vast sums of monies
to be made directly or traded for oil in the Middle East. Most analysts
believe
that the Middle East will be aflood with nuclear weapons, with up to 15
new nuclear nations, and the world of nuclear fuel production -- well
any small control we have today will vanish by the middle of the next
decade if nothing changes. The equipment and supplies for those
nuclear
plants and weapons will most likley come from France, Germany, and
Russia. Our intelligence contacts, when asked about this are of
intrigue, simply nod in understanding -- this is
nothing new to initiated.
While far from being a rogue nation, France is never-the-less also far
from being a true ally of the U.S.. While diplomatically there is
no overt signs that the U.S. is displeased with its NATO partner, it is
clear to those standing outside the U.S. government that France is a
better friend to Russia than the U.S., not to mention with Middle
Eastern nations. Weapons sold by the French to Middle Eastern nations
wind up killing Americans. Have done for more than four
decades. No one assumes
Russia will come trouncing across the Baltics to threaten France like
the Soviet threat during the old Cold War, the new Cold War has the
opportunity to pit France
against its former allies especially if they continue to "side" with
Russian military and commercial goals.
Thus the new French adminstration will be faced with some hard
decisions. Do they continue to aid the Russians in engaging the
Middle East with prohibited technology, weapons systems or aid?
Or does France pull back from the Russians and temper their greed with
the realization that what they do feeds both Anti-American goals and
harms their post WWII savior?
Many in the U.S. feel that a pragmatic approach would be to pay the
French off. In other words, instead of the French turning to
rogue nations for revenue, how about the U.S. finding the means to
offer France both direct incentive and trade bonuses. This would
offset the harsh reality of NOT doing business with rogue nations, and
also, perhaps, lessen the Russian influence on French positions in the
geo-political environment.
In any case, the new French government is facing decisons in policy and
direction -- perhaps a turning point for Europe in general, and France
as a leader there in more specific cases. If France chooses to
engage the Mullahs and stand
up to them, if France chooses to prosecute the War on Terror with
gusto, and if France truly joins with the U.S. in that war., then there
is hope for Europe.
Otherwise, it will once again be the lone fighter, Britain, who faces
the threat to Europe head on, and it will be the U.S. who will be
standing on the outside with dismay looking to the day when once again
we have to step in and save Europe. There is a school of thought
that says the U.S. should seek to better relations France
regardless. But how does that
happen? It takes both parties to engage in a reconcilliation, and
so far, only tepid remarks to that effect have flowed out of the new
French government and there continues the NATO fiction -- happy friends
in the protection of Europe that in reality have a difficult time
working together in Afghanistan.
Worse, French and Italian courts have been so lenient on Terrorists
tried in their countries, there is little doubt the attitude towards
crushing Terrorism is lacking a needed edge. At the same time,
perhaps this is the venue for patching up affairs between the U.S. and
France. If France were to capture more terrorists and sentence
them to really heavy sentences (like a few lifetime sentences please!),
then perhaps it might signal their seriousness on the War on
Terror. The reality is that if France DOES truly join the War on
Terror, it will give them a huge voice in the world, since history will
clearly show that this decades fight against Islamic Extremism and the
Middle Eastern/Asian Islamic terrorist is the most important task of
our time. And their new voice, one which leads Europe to fight
rather than ignore Islamic terrorists, would certainly prompt all
European nations to get tough on terror.
