Krauthammer on the French

Charles Krauthammer opines on French foreign policy, opposition to America, and pandering to the Arab world.

It is not just pique. It is not just antipathy to George Bush. And it is not just France's traditional and reflexive policy of trying to rein in, cut down and domesticate the world's greatest superpower so that ultimately secondary powers like France could emerge as leaders of a multipolar world. There is something far deeper going on here. Beyond the anti-Americanism is an attempt to court the Muslim and Arab world. For its own safety and strategic gain, France is seeking a "third way" between America and its enemies. Chirac's ultimate vision is a France that is mediator and bridge between America and Islam. During the cold war, Charles de Gaulle invented this idea of a third force, withdrawing France from the NATO military structure and courting Moscow as a counterweight to Washington. Chirac, declaring in Istanbul that "we are not servants" of America, has transposed this Gaullist policy to the struggle with radical Islam. Explosive population growth in the Arab world coupled with Europe's unprecedented baby bust presages a radical change in the balance of power in the Mediterranean world. Chirac perhaps sees a coming Muslim future or, at least, a coming Muslim resurgence. And he does not want to be on the wrong side of that history. The result is a classic policy of appeasement: stand up to the American presumption of dictating democratic futures to Afghanistan and Iraq; ingratiate yourself with the Arab world. Thus, for example, precisely at a time when the U.S. and many Western countries are shunning Yasser Arafat for supporting terrorism and obstructing peace, Chirac sends his Foreign Minister to the ruins of Arafat's compound to shake Arafat's hand for world cameras.

France's motivations are always difficult to determine. It seems clear to me that France has made a strategic decision to attempt to limit American power in any way possible. This may or may not be a wise choice for France (I think it is a mistake) but it is coherent. One of Senator Kerry’s loudest criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq has been Bush’s failure to get traditional allies (i.e. France) to go along with us on the venture. I have yet to hear what Kerry would do to get France’s approval. One could suppose that Kerry believes that it is the personality of Bush that is France’s problem and the simple fact of Kerry being in the White House would cause a reversal in France’s foreign policy. I find it facile to believe that France would let personality dominate its foreign policy decisions (or that they find Bush to be more personally repugnant than Arafat, Saddam, or the other dictators they have no problem being nice too). The other way that Kerry could get France back on our side is to work with them at their goal to limit American power. Certainly a retreat from the world, a reduction of American military power and an agreement to abide by Kyoto and the ICC would all be greeted with great approval by France and would restore them as ‘traditional allies’. Obviously Kerry would not run on the second idea and I do not truly believe that he advocates or plans such a course. However the fact remains that only the two possibilities exist. So which is it Senator? Are the French chumps now or should we be chumps in the future?