November 6, 2007
Sarkozy: Beware the glamour of addressing Congress
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first invite to address a joint session of Congress. Nicolas Sarkozy will adore his moment in the limelight tomorrow. Anybody would. But it will probably be particularly special for a man who, according to his estranged wife, sees power as "a Stradivarius" violin. Tomorrow’s speech will be like playing solo in Carnegie Hall.
Still, if he examines the list of around 100 world leaders to have been granted a similar honour, Sarkozy might be given pause. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated. Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah of Iran were overthrown. Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was murdered in an American-backed coup. Bettino Craxi, Syngman Ree and Carlos Salinas were driven into exile. Roh Tae Woo of South Korea was imprisoned for treason, mutiny and corruption. Being honoured by Congress is obviously a dangerous business.
It seems unlikely that Sarko will meet any of these grisly fates. The man whose example should really serve as a warning is Tony Blair. Blair is still alive and making speeches. But his address to a joint session of Congress in July 2003 - interrupted by innumerable flattering ovations - now looks like a low point rather than a triumph.
Blair’s speech to Congress had many good things in it - and also some that, in retrospect, seem sycophantic and sentimental. How about this passage, in which Mr Blair imagines a yeoman American asking -"Why me, why us, why America? And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do." (Sustained applause.) Or, as Rudyard Kipling put it rather more succinctly - "Pick up the white man’s burden."
I suspect that - with the passage of time - even Blair finds the memory of his address to Congress faintly embarrassing. Certainly, he has never got around to picking up the Congressional Gold Medal that was awarded to him on that day.
The warning to Sarkozy is clear. Like Tony Blair in 2003, he now finds himself in the position of the US’s favourite European leader. He too is being lauded as being dynamic, pro-American and tough. Blair’s backing for the US over Iraq was the key to his reputation in America. Sarkozy’s rhetoric on Iran is also going down particularly well in Washington. French fries are back on the menu in Congress and the French president can be assured a sizzling welcome.
The temptation to milk the moment will be hard to resist. But - as Blair’s subsequent career demonstrated - his reputation will ultimately stand or fall on making the right decisions, rather on the length of the ovation granted to him in Congress.
It is not that Sarkozy’s instinct to repair the damaging breach in relations between France and America is wrong. Not at all. Fearful and snobbish anti-Americanism has deformed French foreign policy for too long. Nor is it in France’s interests to be the object of American scorn and hatred.
Temperamentally, Sarkozy seems to be perfectly placed to repair the damage left behind by the Franco-American split over Iraq. He has none of the hang-ups about the US of a de Gaulle or a Chirac. His admiration for America seems unfeigned. Much of the imagery of his presidency - from jogging to hanging out with wealthy businessmen - seems to be borrowed from the US. As one disloyal Yank put it to me: "Sarkozy hates high culture. That’s why he loves America."
All this symbolism matters. But there are also practical steps that Mr Sarkozy could take. An informal deal is in the works, whereby France rejoins Nato’s military structure and the US plays down its suspicions of a bigger role for the European Union on defence.
But the test that matters for the Bush administration may well be Iran. It is still far from clear whether the US will ultimately decide to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Many in the Democrat-controlled Congress will be as opposed to that idea as the most lily-livered European. But the recent rhetoric of both Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, has been widely interpreted as suggesting that France might be willing to contemplate war with Iran as a last resort.
The French have since been desperately trying to play down that suggestion. And ratcheting up pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme - even if it involves a degree of bluff - is not such a bad idea.
But actually backing an attack on Iran would be a very bad idea.
Sarkozy is right to say that alliance does not always entail agreement. There are, however, more and less offensive ways of disagreeing. France’s mistake during the Iraq crisis was not to disagree. In fact, if you re-read the speeches made by the French at the time, they seem both prescient and rather mild-mannered. The real problem was that the French seemed to be going out of their way to rally the world against one of their closest allies. President Chirac and Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, also clearly used anti-Americanism for domestic political reasons. Neither action was either seemly or wise.
Sarkozy will give us plenty of long-winded eloquence tomorrow. But if he is ever put on the spot over Iran, he should borrow a succinct American political slogan - "Just say No." And then shut up.
The contempt for Blair in the United Kingdom stood in stark contrast for the Yanks’ love affair with him.
Sarkozy seems to be headed on the same path. The Yanks are ready to be wooed and flatterd by him whereas the French have already sussed him out. See this article from the English edition of Le Monde:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/10/01sarkozy
I wonder if Sarkozy has $ signs in his eyes already as he plans his retirement on the American after dinner speech circuit that seemed to inform Blair’s last year in office.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pm | Report this commentWith some certainty, I believe the FT reported four years ago or so, when Sarkozy was Finance Minister, on an official trip he made to Washington. After meeting John Snow and a handful of lesser Treasury officials, he began a round of meetings with Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle (who subsequently became his advisor) and (I believe) Cheney.
Jacques Chirac was outraged. No doubt, the ire of Foreign Minister de Villepin turned to a grin when Chirac quickly and publicly called his minister home, cutting a planned six-day visit Washington into a three-day one.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm | Report this commentHi Mr. Moderator,
Why did you delete the post from Enrique?
While his analysis may be wrong or right, it is certainly not affending against the principles of this blog.
He pointed out that Sarkozy and Kouchner, et al, have Jewish lineage and offered that as an explanation of the new pro-Washington, anti-Iran, anti-Muslim leanings of the new French administration. He may be wrong but he is certainly neither offensive, nor implausible.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentI don´t know why a clear explanation has to be deleted. It is not just Sarkozy and Kouchner. It is also Attalli, Strauss-Khan, Glucksmann…and the patern is exactly the same as that of American “neocons” (no matter of their pretended political adscription)
They defend their interests as an “ethnic” lobby and everybody knows that. EVERYBODY.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | November 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentI ask the moderators to consider removing the above comment by Mr Costas Mira, which is suggesting that the actions of the personalities that he lists are motivated by their Jewish ethnic-religious affiliation - this is blatant anti-Semitic racism.
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pm | Report this commentHi Enrique, Pacifist
I deleted Enrique’s orginal post (now copied below) as I felt its allegation of a Jewish conspiracy was not enlightening and was likely to offend or deter other readers. But it’s out in the open now, so I’ll be interested to hear the views of others.
Enrique’s original post: Sarkozy is basically a neocon. With him France has left to be a Free nation to become an American protectorate. Sarkozy´s government includes an apparent raimbow government (conservatives, socialists, liberals) which really is monolithic (zionist): Kouchner, Attalli, Strauss-Khann, Glucksmann…the only reason why they support Sarkozy is because they are both jews and zionists, and that´s an evidence. As such they know Sarkozy adopts an strongly anti-arab stance contradicting the last decades of french diplomacy in her former colonies.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, FT.com Interactive Editor | November 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
At the risk of being called anti-Semitic myself, aren’t many people motivated by their ethnic-religious affiliations?
- Aren’t Westerners frequently called upon to defend the Judeo-Christian values?
- Aren’t Muslims accused of putting their religion above their nationality?
Why is that Jews are the only group whose actions should not be seen though the prism of their ehtnic-religious affiliations?
(Especially when, in the case of American NeoCons, there is such a very large correlation between Likudniks and NeoCons?)
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pm | Report this commentDamian,
This is unseemly of the Financial Times. In the not-to-distant past, these were the kind of allegations that justified the greatest genocide in human history.
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this commentWell Done Mr. Carrington.
You just struck a blow for freedom of speech and the fair-mindedness for which your fellow countrymen are renowned for.
I think it is regrettable that any criticism of anybody who is Jewish (or of Jews as a group) is conflated with support for Hitler and genocide.
It is an egregious method of limiting freedom of speech (and thought) that should not go unchallenged.
(Look at America for the sad consequences).
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm | Report this commentHi Pacifist,
I am against all racial slur, whether directed at Muslims, Jews or any other religious or ethnic group. In the case of Jews, allegations of conspiracy are especially offending, for reasons based on not-to-distant history.
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 4:03 pm | Report this commentRCS, Pacifist, Enrique
I agree with RCS, but in the spirit of openness I wanted on this occasion to gauge the reaction of the blog’s readers. The three of you have made your positions clear, so it would be good to now let others have their say, if they wish to.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, FT.com Interactive Editor | November 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm | Report this commentI think Enrique’s post is a bit offensive, I mean some people are sick of hearing about jewish conspiracy, claims that 9/11 was organised by jews to start the war on islam etc. Its disgusting to read it and certainly this kind of things won’t be taken seriously in Washington.
Posted by: Chen | November 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentIf I say ‘Muslims countries are the least developed nations, people who achieved little compared to China, USA. In the UK and USA muslim ethic group has lowest income and lowest grades’. Thats true, but you will accuse me now of ‘hating muslims, offending you’ when I just quoute the fact. I won’t do it again, but that’s what you do often, accusing jews of everything.If there is a meteor which is going to strike Earth you will say ‘Its jews did it’.
My own post said nearly the same thing as the “offensive” one, but without the words. You will find the FT article I note reports likewise. I can add many surnames to the French list in the cut contribution. So, “neocon” and “Likudnite” are acceptable?
I can assure you my Jewish colleagues, friends and extended-family members are comfortable with such discussions and can be more blount and concerned than the “offending” contributor. It is the rich Jewish legacy that is truly at risk here. Ignorant/arrogant political correctness serves none well, particularly in a world where so many misperceptions of Islam go unchallenged.
The FT suffers a serious loss of credibility when it so acts. Your manner of replacing of the offensive quote serves it no better than your cut.
Perhaps this explains why FT coverage of Israëli politics is so poor. What reporter wants his salary review to be based on it?
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentChen, everybody knows that all the kamikaze pilots of 911 were islamists, and the overwhelming majority of them from Saudi Arabia like Bin Laden. But of course, we cannot say that all the Muslims are this or that…there are different sects, some are American allies and other not etc, etc.
Pointing out the fact that in spite of their political adscription (a great part of them come from the Socialist Party) those jews in Sarkozy´s Government are acting like an ethnic lobby and that has turned to change the french diplomacy of the last decades is something evident. And it is logical they defend the state of Israel.
I wouldn´t say the same about the strong French and British support of the state of Israel during the post-WWII when France did help Israel to build its own nuclear reactors. By then Israel was an strong political assest for Western Europe as was saw in Suez…while America did the opposite and supported Arab nationalists.
I just point out a fact. Some would say that America´s embargo of Cuba is autonomous from the Cuban lobby…but i think it is evident the Cuban lobby bases mainly in Miami is eager to keep the embargo until something changes in Havana.
Posted by: Enrique | November 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pm | Report this commentIn defence of Sarkozy, he is not known to be anti-Arab or Muslim. Nor are any of his initiatives anti-Muslim. The DNA immigration test has stronger implications for Sub-Sahahran Africans and will impact little on Mahgrebians, who are increasingly well integrated into French society. In fact, Sarkozy enjoys significant support across the Mahgrebian population here, and otherwise it can be argued that he is encouraging it to find a political voice. Ségolène Royal failed miserably to address Muslim issues.
Sarkozy’s Mediterrannean economic-zone proposal represents some very long overdue initiatives. He has established sound sorking relationships in Algers and Rabat. Tunisia, with a well-heeled power clique, may prove the most resistant to his efforts. One thing for certain, the US will wait a long time before its business people are welcomed in these countries, and I doubt Sarkozy has any intent to open doors for them during his term.
That said, I am a critic of Sarkozy’s affinities for the neocon agenda, as is well and succinctly described in Mr Rachman’s post yesterday. I also have little respect for Sarkozy’s intellect, but the verdict is out on his political instincts, which likely will serve France’s Muslims well, and will hopefully steer him back onto a more European page. Hopefully, at least one of his advisors will help him see that all is not well in Old Oz.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm | Report this commentThe neocon description I referred to above was in Mr Rachman’s 1 November posting on the Saudis, the British and Miliband: “In the US, the early neocon theory (or hope) was that the successful establishment of a democratic Iraq would allow the west to break its “Faustian bargain” with the House of Saud. With our new, westernised Iraqi pals selling us oil - and establishing relations with Israel, drinking whisky and allowing women to drive - we would be able to put two fingers up to the Saudis.”
This is really the neocon agenda in a nutshell. There are those who, inded, fail to move it off some Zionist roots and there are those, as often educated Americans and Brits as (also) Jews, who feel, as Tony Blair is cited in today’s posting, that it is their (divine) destiny to lead the rest of the world. Certainly none of the contributors could for a moment share such a sentiment.
Ignorance and arrgoance are in abundance. We need seasoned journalists to continue to set parameters for reasonable thought with some intellectual authority in today’s stream-of-consciousness world. Then policymakers may be able to sort through their days a bit more effectively and with some real sense of accountability.
(Apologies for some annoying typos in earlier posts (and maybe this one as well).
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm | Report this commentWCM: “We need seasoned journalists to continue to set parameters for reasonable thought with some intellectual authority in today’s stream-of-consciousness world.”
Well Mr. Rachman wrote a rather amusing piece on neo-cons once…I read it sometime ago but I think he got it right when he said it is not so much a problem that so many of the leading neo-con founders are Jewish and single mindedly pro-Israel …the bigger problem is that so many of then are journalists! It’s this network of publications and think tanks, and FOX News, financed by Bruce Kovner and Murdoch and others that allows them to have these “ROLL OUTS” on invading Iraq, now the need to strike Iran …the mythology of “Sept 6 Syrian Strike” etc…..this propaganda machine is so very fine tuned and aggressive that their opinion dominates news cycles and the foreign policy of the Republican Party. Even Hilary Clinton promotes aspects of neo-conism to look tough enough to be President!… On Sarkozy…he is not a neo-con…he is does not appear to be solely driven by ideology…if you have ever met a real neo-con…Judaism IS neo-conism and vice versa to them…they do not represent US Jewry or World Jewry…Their real strength in US politics aside from mastering and securing funding for this propaganda machine of theirs.. is their alliance with the Christian right!…it is no accident that Guiliani who has the biggest problem with the Christian right has the big daddy of them all, neo-con Norman Podhoretz as a campaign adviser!…If Rudy wins ..Elliot .Abrams could end up as Sec of State!…frightening stuff!…in regard to Israel…it’s the worse thing that could have happened to Israel, the rise of Neocons here and the heruts -Likud politicis in Israel, at the same time…the US will survive the neo-cons …I am not sure Israel will …which is really sad.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Report this commentI am not blind like the American Government who suffered an attack from A and blames B and invades C.
When France didn´t support the US in the UN Security Council there was a clear anti-France propaganda from Israel and America repeating that the French were antisemitic and that french jews had to leave France and settle in Israel because they were on the verge of a Genocide promoted by Jacques Chirac.
Soon some rabinos said that propaganda was ridiculous.
Right now numbers play against Israel in the Western economic agenda for two reasons: increasing price of oil and demographic boom in most muslim countries (and increasing arab and muslim population in Europe, including Russia)
There is a growing pressure from China (oil) and Russia (sales of weapons) to fill any gap the West leaves in the arab and muslim World. There is an increasing number of consumers while Israel has just 6 million people (almost 20% of them arab)
European and American Corporations have interests in the market…They know right now China and Russia cannot compete in middle-high technology which Europe and America can offer, but for how long?
So with that economic (which with time will translate into political) pressure jews from all sides of the political spectrum decided that they don´t have other option but being united in the defense of Israel.
Posted by: Enrique | November 6th, 2007 at 7:12 pm | Report this commentJ’accuse!
Anti-Semitism lives on, and is increasingly directed against Israel. For more or less fifty years was considered impolite, disgraceful and even illegal. Now all that anger is back, back with a vengeance. Anger at what? - for Jews are a tiny minority in Europe today. Anger at being accused - so transfer that guilt to the lamb!
“And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?” MATTHEW 5:47
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 8:08 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Rachman,
I am surprised that you allow here such flagrant anti-Semitism. Is this what this blog is for?
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm | Report this commentRCS
GET A GRIP!
Many Israelis say much harsher things about their government 40 years of occupation etc..than anyone here,or Jimmy Carter etc…I am pro Israel but I am not pro Israel occupation of the West Bank Gaza and Golan Heights, which finally has done what I thought was impossible.. corrupted the Israeli military…as the Winograd Report clearly points out …then there is the very open economic discrimation that goes on against the Arab Israeli population…admittedly there is much disinformation distributed on Israel…however, it does not help Israel to act like it is above and beyond any blame for the disinformation campaign that has ensued since that stupid inavasion of Lebanon War 1 in the 1980’s…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentInterestingly enough when I read racist language my body’s immune system responds and that also is why I feel compelled to write. Pavlovian perhaps, but appropriate. Our entire society used to react that way, not too long ago, to any form of racism. Only 65 years later and we already forget? It is racist to assume that the only reason why French Jewish politicians would support Sarkozy is because the latter is Jewish. That is what Enrique wrote; it is an echo of the Dreyfuss affair; it’s a good call to remove such inflammatory and threatening language.
In 1998 anti-Chinese riots occurred in Indonesia; after a sharp rise in prices and a collapse of the Indonesian currency popular sentiment turned against the Chinese community blaming them for the inflation. It was like the Kristallnacht.
So if people ask why one shouldn’t critique Jews it’s for the same reason that one shouldn’t critique Chinese; it has nothing to do with Israel or China. They simply often are minorities who through an empasis on education and internal social cohesion and codes manage to come out on top in society more often than is average. To assign them negative characteristics as a group is not only threatening it also is deeply offensive to those of us who have been in the same position. Those who write on this blog are the privileged guests of the FT and should accord another human being equally no matter their religion, race or capacity for empathy.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL | November 6th, 2007 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentDear Lisa-Helene,
I do not intend to continue to participate in this discussion. But just to straighten things out: my remarks were not directed at legitimate criticism, but at anti-Semitic slurs such as “rabinos”, and especially at earlier posts - which should have been removed,not reproduced.
Posted by: RCS | November 6th, 2007 at 9:54 pm | Report this commentHere are some answers to your questions.
RCS asks - Is this blog intended as a forum for anti-semites? No - as far as I recall from my discussions with the editor - this was not part of the mission statement.
Is Enrique an anti-semite? Yes, clearly.
Is Enrique quite stupid? Occasional flashes of intelligence. But - on balance - yes.
Is Pacifist an anti-semite? No, I would say not. But I would diagnose an unhealthy obsession with the “Jewish question” and I suggest he discusses it with his therapist at their next appointment.
Was this post about the Jews? No, I was under the impression it was about Franco-American relations. But what do I know?
Should we have shut this discussion down early? Yes, probably. But its not a catastrophic error to let it run. I’m not alarmed by this subject. Bored, but not alarmed.
But won’t you deal with Enrique’s points? If I must. Yes, a lot of neocons are both Jews and strong supporters of Israel. A lot of supporters of the war are also not Jews. (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc). And a lot of prominents opponents of the war are also Jewish. There are a lot of us about.
Do you intend to respond to every discussion in this way? No, no, no.
Is this particular discussion now over? Yes, yes, yes.
What do you intend to do now? Go and watch the football and then go to bed. I suggest you all do the same.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | November 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pm | Report this commentI am actually not familiar with the term…but in any event this issue of Sarkozy being a neo-con seems silly to me…first of all not all neo-cons are Jewish, moreover, Sarkozy is not ideological …he is pro Israel which does not always translate into being anti- Arab…moreover, he is not even Jewish by Jewish religious law standards or by his own definition …”According to Sarkozy, his staunchly Gaullist grandfather was more of an influence on him than his father, whom he rarely saw. His grandfather, a Sephardi Jew by birth, was a convert to Catholicism, and Sarkozy was, accordingly, raised in the Catholic faith of his household. Nicolas Sarkozy, like his brothers, is a baptised and professing Catholic. Sarkozy also said recently that one of his role models was the late pope John Paul II.” I have no idea if Enrique is anti- Semitic but he is obviously uninformed…how he can say Chirac had any Foreign Policy at all is beyond me…Sarkozy is right to reject how Chirac looked at the world around him…and the last polls I saw showed him still very popular…the bloom is hardly off the rose for him…BTW, speaking of US Congress they just dinged the Bush Administration’s plan for those proposed interceptors in Poland as part of a European missile defense system by eliminating needed funds …that will help Task also…especially, at next month’s EU meeting
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm | Report this commentGeesh…just read Mr. Rachman! I am glad he omitted me! It would look bad when I apply for a spot on this “foreign affairs circuit” of his…I am going to go read a silly romance novel now…and think about foreign affairs!…the fun kind …not the kind goin on here!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 6th, 2007 at 10:54 pm | Report this commentI wonder why RCS says that it is “antisemitic” saying “rabinos”.??????? It is ridiculous. Rabinos are the religious heads of practising jews in the same way as priests.
Posted by: Enrique | November 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm | Report this commentAnd back to the main topic, of course i think France´s relations with America are improving and the effects of the Iraq War in Franco-Geramn relations will be set aside for the welbeing of NATO.
After some years of comfrontation in Africa and the Mideast where Frnce had an important market for its products there will be more cooperation.
And of course, i am not antisemitic because that would mean saying something so stupid as if all the jews were clons or something like that.
Posted by: Enrique | November 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm | Report this commentI think Mr. Rachman was in a hurry to watch his football and missed a couple of things out so, just to be helpful, I augment his cathechism a little bit.
1- Are all Jews pro Israel, and pro-Zionist?
—————————————————
NO… this is an organisation of prominent Jews in the UK who are not:
Independent Jewish Voices:
http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/
This very day, November 7th, we had this news item: “British Jews break away from ‘pro-Israeli’ Board of Deputies”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2237707.ece
More Jewish voices against Zionism:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
THEREFORE, OPPOSING ZIONISM IS NOT THE SAME AS HATING JEWS.
2-) Do Zionists try to stifle reasoned debate and cover up for Israeli atrocities by accusing others of anti-semitism?
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Yes. RCS’s behaviour is only a small example. There are whole organisations devoted to effective censorship, denying freedom of speech and defamation of opponents, particularly in the US.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am | Report this commentTo Lisa-Helene:
I wish to correct a factual error in your post:
You say “he [Sarkozy] is not even Jewish by Jewish religious law standards.”
This is wrong.. Sarkozy has a Jewish mother which makes him Jewish by
the religious law standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
Quote
Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant father, Pál Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa[4] (Hungarian: nagybócsai Sárközy Pál; some sources spell it Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy Pál; Hungarian pronunciation (help·info)), and a mother of French and Ottoman Sephardic Jewish descent, Andrée Mallah
Unquote
Posted in the interests of accuracy.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentThanks to everyone for their comments on the issues raised by Enrique’s first post.
We have given the issue a decent airing and now need to move on - or back to the issues of Gideon’s post.
If not, we may well feel it necessary to close this thread.
Damian
Posted by: Damian Carrington, FT.com Interactive Editor | November 7th, 2007 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentOK, back to the topic
I like to pose the question: “What are the motives of M Sarkozy?” in the light of the following:
A-) The French foreign policy has traditionally been informed by one principle only: Self-Interest.
(For example, it is well-known that they sold arms to both Arabs and Israelis and during the Iraq-Iran war, they sold anti-ship Exocet missiles to Iraq whose only conceivable purpose was to attack tanker shipping in the Persian Gulf, much against the general interests of the West.)
B-) The British experience of being the US lapdog has not really benefited Britain at all. I recall that after Kuwait was wrested back from Iraq, not only British companies failed to get additional juicy contracts from Kuwait, they also got kicked off some existing contracts which were rewarded to American companies. Similarly, most of the contracts in Iraq have gone to the American companies, notably those with political clout, on a no-bid basis.
If Britain have got anything in Iraq, it has certainly not been worth the grief. France are likely to experience the same if they hope to share any spoils after an invasion of Iran.
C-) Sarkozy’s ideas about being in a war against “Jihadism” do not really justify his posturing and (as is the case with Bush’s “war on terror”) are mere tilting at windmills. After all, was Jihadism increased or decreased by the invasion of Iraq? Is Jihadism likely to increase or decrease after an invasion of Iran? Is war on Jihadism is on, why hasn’t to the US succedded in capturing Bin Laden after six years?…and so on.
So I ask why, if we discount his affiliations, would a French president want to go against cross-party, long-established French foreign policy for no apparent gain?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentSarkozy looks a good guy. I like what he has done in Chad and with the European Treaty…but it is evident he has buried the legacy of Charles DeGaulle.
Charles DeGaulle, Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac were French nationalists while Sarkozy just follow orders.
When France didn´t support the US invasion of Iraq in the UN Security Council, Americans who consider Europe just a Protectorate led by the Viceroy Bantz Craddock (head of SACEUR) were really upset.
Even if this looks like a Democracy the truth is the main source of national Sovereignty, Defense, is not headed by the King of Spain Juan Carlos I (Supreme Commander of the Spanish Army) or by the President of France Nikolas Sarkozy….there are still two levels over their heads: the Viceroy Bantz Craddock, Supreme Commander of NATO Europe (SACEUR) and over him the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush.
So when Nikolas Sarkozy meets George W. Bush they are not talking as “allies” at the same level but as the Chief (Bush) and the servant (Sarkozy)…and a distant servant, a waiter, because over him is the head of the kitchen (Craddock)
Charles DeGaulle wanted INDEPENDENCE as much as possible with the Force de Frappé, Aerospatiale, Framatone, the CFA, the EEC…he wanted to lead. Sarkozy just wants to be a waiter.
Sarkozy, even if not a bad guy, has buried the legacy of Charles DeGaulle and France has left to be a Sovereign Nation.
Posted by: Enrique | November 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentHas Sarkozy been inspired by De Toqueville’s “La démocratie en Amerique” or does he just want to entice a lot more US visitors to France: tourism is the number 1 economic sector in France, 75m visit every year but getting many more would do wonders for the French trade balance.
Curiously on Le Monde website, during Radiozapping today, they replayed Sarko’s words to Congress “Je veux réconquerir le coeur de l’Amerique” immediately followed by a recording of an old song “…and then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like I love you”.
What is one to make of the hyper-active Sarkozy who has government ministers but one rarely sees them on French TV out and about on their own. It’s a one-man show so far in France. How long can he keep it up?
Posted by: FH | November 7th, 2007 at 6:13 pm | Report this commentGR”Sarkozy will give us plenty of long-winded eloquence tomorrow”
Not at all! Very straight forward. Came on like a straight shooter. Centered remarks on economic global stability issues …that was safe…but also HIGHLY relevant….wagged his finger at US financial policies (or better lack of policies, especially one better known as oversight!) Most importantly he came on very PRO EUROPE, much more than pro-US..I think he will be good for France, and even better …good for Europe…he does appear to see Merkel as competition instead as a potential teamplayer ..if that is temperament thing again…he should put it aside…they could do great things for EU via cooperation…I admire Merkel and I like him.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 7th, 2007 at 9:42 pm | Report this commentAs usual a balanced and thoughtful column. Definitely more interesting than the story on the sex scandal at Oprah’s academy (which I understand was only published on the FT website and not in the print edition). Thank you Mr. Rachman for reminding us that the FT was once a thinking newspaper.
Posted by: Dominique | November 8th, 2007 at 3:51 am | Report this commentI like Gideon Rachman’s blogs. But clearly, the Financial Times and Rachman are British. And the British are oblivious to the European Union. Perhaps you Brits never heard that we Europeans, especially France and Germany, gave up War? We continental Europeans know War; in War, there are only losers.
Strange, no mention here that French intelligence gave their American friends access to their Iraqi traitor, a top Iraqi cabinet minister who told them all before the invasion that Iraq had no weopens of mass destruction. That explains the French speeches against the war!
Posted by: Shirley Jackson | November 8th, 2007 at 5:07 am | Report this commentShirley - I agree, but the French should not have acquiesced in private and then veto it in public. It angered Powell, arguably the one needed to keep a dialogue going and probably the one that could have if not prevented the war, surely helped with a post-war plan.
Enrique - I don’t think you understand Sarko nor France. It used to be the case that France could lead Europe - with Germany nodding, small countries rallying (usually because Germany was following France) and the UK on the sidelines. (having left NATO military command, France was happy to portay the UK as a pawn of the US.)
But of course, Germany is now more assertive and independant, Europe has 27 members, including recently wealthy ones like Spain or populous ones like Poland - basically, France cannot take Europe where it wants as easily as it used to. Then add a US “global empire” whose recent travails are probably making it more reticent to foreign affairs (like post Vietnam war), some new emerging powers, (BRIC- Brazil, Russia, India, China), the middle east situation with Iran re-emerging as a regional power. On top of this, the UK under Brown cannot be too closely associated to Bush - the Brits still like Americans, but have become just as fed up with Bush than the rest of continental europeans. Of course, once Bush is out, then Brown will re-engage with Clinton, Obama, whoever and rekindle the relationship.
This is why I think Sarko knows it is now or never to become America’s “best friend”. It’s all about getting in the driving seat at the top table. With US influence on the wane in several regions (central asia (Russia, China), Asia (China), Middle East (Iran)) I think the US will have to make priorities - and probably focus on the Pacific & Middle East. Which means Europe will probably have to do more for itself - if another Kosovo happened next spring, it would have to be European missiles. And my feeling is that Sarko wants to fill the vaccum created by the US’s waning influence.
As for your point on DeGaulle, Mitterrand and Chirac: the world is much different now than under DeGaulle - he wanted to avoid France being a pawn in the cold war game. As for Mitterrand and Chirac, while the retoric wasn’t overtly friendly to the US, a lot more friendly cooperation was going on. The French often helping the US in Africa and the Middle East. The fact that France has been “against” the US is a complete myths.
To Pacifist - your link to Le Monde is in fact Le Monde Diplomatique, not the newspaper Le Monde. Often they do have very interesting, well researched articles but they tend to be anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism etc.. Not the McDonalds smashing type- more the intellectual from the left type.
Posted by: French_in_London | November 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Report this commentAs for your point about “contracts” to be gained from joining in the US in a war with Iran, I don’t buy it - this is a government using tax payers’ money to fill up shareholders’ pockets? Ok, maybe that’s going with US firms in Iraq - but it’s still not the driver for a decision, it’s more a by-product. In any case, France has been actively encouraging the US to start talks directly with Iran. My view is that the tough talk is a way of leaving all options on the table, yet preventing war seems to me to be the main aim.
French, i agree with your view and i know in 1991 we all were supporting the US in the Gulf War.
It is true right now France just means 12% of the European Union´s population, not much more than Spain´s 9% and not much less than Germany´s 16%…
José María Aznar also tried, and got to an important degree, to be the main support of the US in the Eurozone (not in the European Union, where Blair clearly led)
But i just want to point out that there are only two fields in which the European Union and America can talk at the same level as autonomous entities: Trade (a great job was made by Pascal Lamy) and Monetary Policy (European Central Bank, headed by Jean-Claude Trichet)
On Defense, where ultimately rests our Sovereignty, Europe is not just divided but an American Protectorate (the US didn´t admit a military branch of Galileo, for example) in spite of Chirac´s efforts after the Iraq crisis to create the independent European Defense Headquarters (with the support of Germany and Belgium, later by Spain, Greece and Luxembourg too) even if i have to say if Sarkozy proposed Germany to share the cost of Nuclear Force by all the European Union that was a good step but not possible until our Intelligence Services are much more integrated…
Posted by: Enrique | November 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentEnrique may on to something according to this article in Le Figaro “Les étranges accusations d’un cybercorbeau” published on Oct. 10, 2007.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20071012.FIG000000291_les_etranges_accusations_d_un_cybercorbeau.html
Perhaps Mr. Rachman would like to do a column on it.
Posted by: anon | November 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentAnon, more interesting is the second post by WCM.
Posted by: Enrique | November 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentwell, Pacifist had already included this link - and it’s been established beyong any doubts the whole thing is bogus. Let’s leave it at that.
Posted by: a | November 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentThe whole thing was a damp squib, after all:
http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/
Posted by: Pacifist | November 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pm | Report this commentLike you, I had thought this thread was burned out a long time ago. However, I noted a small article yesterday in Jeune Afrique that stunned me and fits here. Living in Paris and having a good neutral ear on diplomatic ground, it is rare for me to note key State visits two weeks after they happen, even with my frequent travels.
This week’s Jeune Afrique notes on p. 27 that Ehoud Olmert arrived in Paris during the noise created with the announcement of Cécilia’s separation. Reading his remarks, Sarkozy was hardly shakey on his feet. I will not cite key comments here.
The article leads with, “Curieusement passée inaperçue dans les médias français, polarisés, il est vraie, sur ‘l’affaire Cécilia’ et la visite en grande pompe, quelques heures plus tard, de Nicholas Sarkozy au Maroc, la rencontre du 22 octobre à l’Elysée entre le président français et le Premier ministre israélien Ehoud Olmert valait pourtant qu’on s’y arrête.”
It later notes that only Haaretz had had access.
A quick search of the FT site fails to find mention. Did your Paris bureau miss it? Is it too late to dig into the agendas? It was not an unscheduled working meeting, and Sarkozy’s comments merit a wider audience. Especially, here in France, where they stake out some new ground.
Posted by: WCM | November 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am | Report this comment