As much as I would rather not editorialize the same subject as every other paper across the globe this week--that is, America's foreign policy--the temptation is too great and the lapses of intelligence too significant to ignore. However, it's not the United States that deserves our attention this time, it's their detractors, specifically France, and their correspondingly ignorant arguments.
Why France?
For the simple reason that they make me angry. One would think that having the Second World War rip through their beloved home would have taught the French to appreciate effective international intervention with aggressive dictators, yet they seem to want to treat Iraq with the same gentle touch Chamberlain so effectively applied to Nazi Germany in Munich. The British learned their lesson, so why didn't France?
Come to think of it, France is really in no position at all to critique anyone's foreign policy. Quickly glancing at the Ivory Coast, we have a chance to watch French appeasement in action. They've done an excellent job of dictating to the good citizenry of their former (if not de facto) colony how they are to get along and share their nation with the nice, polite rebel forces which have been ravaging the country in civil war for the past five months. The stinging irony of all this is of course the anti-French protesters calling for American intervention in the Ivory Coast. Mind you, I doubt America is willing to clean up another French colonial screw-up (cough, Vietnam, cough). Who could blame them?
Then there's the oil. Though there is an intelligent argument to be made for the oil motive, it's certainly not the one being made by most anti-war advocates, including the French. The American military will not be marching into Iraq and setting up a colony, drilling their oil and sending it straight back to the States. Their intention is to stabilize the region so they can trade for oil in the future, not steal it. There's also an argument to made for France's motive in keeping America at bay--they have a huge oil interest already underway in Iraq, though I'm sure they wouldn't stoop so low as to let that influence their policy.
This brings me to my final point: no one should be surprised if the U.S. behaves in its own best interest. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing it's job. Why does the world expect the U.S. to always act selflessly? When the U.S. acts altruistically, it's usually in their best interest to do so--for example, the Marshal Plan, to which France owes so much--which is all we should truly expect from them. It's truly a great injustice when we expect the U.S. to rid the world of all our bogeymen and then ask them to cow to the stubborn complacency of marginal nations like France, Belgium and Germany.
America is not out to kill Iraqi children, Saddam has done so with his own domestic policies. America is in no immediate threat from Iraq, but Israel and Turkey are. If America believes that disposing of Saddam Hussein will protect the lives and interests of its people, then it is obliged to do so, regardless of French public opinion, to which President Bush is not accountable.
Comments
... but how can you compare Hitler-regime in Germany in the 30?s and 40?s to the regime in Iraq. Iraq is not as much a threat to the world as Hitler was. Considering the 2nd world war, France as well as Germany?s behaviour regarding to Iraq indicates that both learnt their lesson. Both experienced more than once, what it means to have a war in the own country ? in contrast to the USA. Both countries can image what war will mean to people in Iraq, while the USA does not care.
France and Germany are definitely in position to criticize US behaviour. If you were not allowed to criticize someone because of own mistakes of the past, USA were not allowed to criticize any other country as well: they used outlawed weapons in Vietnam, destroyed Indian culture in North America, used Atomic bomb in Hiroshima, supported Saddam Hussein?s war against Iran in the 80?s, etc..
It is correct that France has got own trade interests in the gulf region, but when USA focuses on a war in Iraq because of own oil interests also France is allowed to be against a war because of own interests. It is a cheek to believe only USA are allowed to have an own, independent opinion and others only have to follow.
If America is not out to kill Iraqi children, why don?t they consider all other options for a solution before having a war? And ? if you still haven?t realized it ? of course America will kill Iraqi children and women, as that is what war is about ? killing other people!
The United States is not out to kill Iraqi children. Yes, the death of women and children would undoubtedly be a consequence of war. There is an important distinction, though, between a forseeable consequence of an action, and the intent of that action.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that the US is acting selfishly and ignoring the interests, or even the right to life, of those outside its borders for the sake of oil and influence. There is also an argument to be made that the US is acting selflessly to rid the world of a dictator who already has devastated his own people and, given time, could do much worse. Regardless of which you believe to be true, it is demeaning to portray Bush, and by extension the USA, as nothing more than baby-killing monsters. Death is always a consequence of war, but it is rarely the motive.
Your are right the US are no baby-killing monsters, but people should not consider war as the only or best solution. Furthermore noone should devalue other countries for making other suggestions or for being against a war (see Kyle Young in "France pointing finger in wrong direction").
Two more question regarding this strange article:
What has the reason for war in Vietnam (meaning communism)to do with the fact that Vietnam was a french colony? I don't see any reason to criticize France in that point!
What did America clean up in Vietnam? They wanted to defeate communism and failed!
You can't hide behind the UN when it suits you. If the UN approves military force to disarm Iraq, will these same protestors turn their attention to the UN, or will they continue to pick the fashionable target, dear old Dubya.
As for France (Russia & China) and their stance against military action, Kyle hit the nail right on the head. Is this the same France currently using force in Ivory Coast (without UN blessing), the same Russia that is bombing the hell out of Chechnya (without UN approval), the same China that jails, tortures, & murders its people on a daily basis? Are we speaking about the same UN that just appointed Libya to head the UN Commussion on Human Rights? And we're supposed to take these people seriously?
You say war is not the answer and maybe you're right. But what is the answer? The problem with the anti-war movement is they offer criticism but no answers. So what is the world to do if not go to war? Time is running out.
To those who believe that anti-pacifists suffer from the so called "munich" syndrom, I would venture to point out that there are several parallels to be drawn between Hitler and Saddam, and I would also point out that they are the most relevant ones. Though the US isn't directly threatened by Iraq, Israel and Turkey are, as was Iran (and simply because the US backed a war with Iran doesn't mean that Iraq isn't responsible for it).
Further more, if we ignore every argument that draws comparison to Hitler, we would be missing out on the point of studying history; learning from past mistakes.
The Ivory Coast is not one of France's past mistakes, it is ongoing. As is France's undermining of attempted peacful solutions to Zimbabwe on behalf of the EU. Russia and China are also in current situations which makes it not only hard but hipocritical for them to take a moral stance against the US.
As for the US's supposed crimes against humanity; Vietnam is still up for debate, and good ol' Henry is largly thought responsible, to say nothing again of the fact that France bears a significant burden for their failiure to de-Colonize in a stable fashion in the area. As for destroying Indian culture in North America, I should venture to point out that whatever culture you belong to has at one point or another "destroyed" another culture. For instance, modern Islam has all but wipped out original Zoroastronism (which is still practiced in some locations in India); England itself has seen wave upon wave of competing cultures shape the continent throughout history. Saddam is threatening the nomadic culture in Iraq, China... well, draw your own conclusions.
Then the Atomic Bomb. I would venture to point out that the US had already caused civilian casualties in the same ballpark figure against the Japanese in the firebombing of Tokyo, and that the alternative to use nukes would have ended up likely costing far more lives. The math is simple.
I'll refrain from talking about Iran, since that involves a discusion I can't carry out like this, but anyone interested is free to contact me.
Kyle Young
PS I apologize for any spelling mistakes, but I couldn't be bothered to spell-check the document.
In order to deal with the problem America is suggesting war with Iraq. Not because they care about people in Iraq suffering from Saddam Hussein - they haven?t cared in the 80?s and after the gulf war. Also not because they want to fight dictatorship and establish democracy -otherwise they could attack Iran as well, or what about North Korea!!!!! Also not because Iraq is a threat to Turkey ? we talk about political and economical power in this world. If America establishes a democracy highly influenced by the US, America gains power in a very important region. There wouldn?t be any chance for an American company to produce oil while Saddam Hussein was still there. Furthermore It is a chance for America to restructure the political world and to show everyone the military power and political independence of the United States of America.
If America has these kind of advantages (political & economical), what kind of advantages would other countries, like France have? French (ELF!!), Russian and Chinese companies would get the chance to produce oil in Iraq in the future while Hussein was still there. Additionally everyone would be able to buy Iraqi oil like everyone did the 80?s, as Iraq will also be in the OPEC under Saddam Hussein. Thus there are many more disadvantages and no real advantage. Each country has its own interest and you cannot ask another country to ignore its interest. America may have interests in a war, many other countries haven?t. And, in my point of view, that is o.k.! That is what it is all about: own, selfish interest, though Bush, Putin, Schrˆder and Chirac would never admit!