The French Candidate

Curt Mudgeon

August 2004

At long last, Mr Kerry has started unveiling his foreign policy agenda. He will rally the “international community” to our side. By mending our relations with European countries, he will form a “true coalition” that will help us win the war against terrorism and shoulder the burden of bringing order and peace to Iraq and Afghanistan. How will he do that? He has A PLAN. This plan will also make the world respect America, and end our “isolationism.” Unfortunately, we are told that the details of the plan will be revealed only after Mr Kerry moves into the White House. This message was not lost on France and Germany, which the senator was careful not to name as the indispensable members of a “true” coalition. France is of special importance to Mr Kerry for reasons of political affinities, and also because France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The French openly loathe George W. Bush, which makes them singularly congenial to the Democrats in general, and to Mr Kerry in particular. Puff pieces in the French press clearly indicate that the senator is THE French candidate. Anyone asking for independent confirmation can take a look at the results of a recent poll in which 78% of the French population wished for a Kerry victory in November, while support for President Bush scored a paltry 9%. This is not surprising. The French see in the candidate one of their very own, a social democrat who is a moral relativist and an internationalist, who can stand on both sides of any controversy, and---icing on the cake---can speak French. The French believe that their language is characteristic of the sort of sophistication and finesse found only in their kin and generally uncommon to foreigners.

Although Mr Kerry remains rather vague about what constitutes the “international community,” it does not require an advanced degree in political science to know that he means “The United Nations,” and, more specifically, its Security Council. The Security Council, which is the UN authority on matters of war and peace, comprises fifteen members. China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States are permanent members, while the other ten are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. To pass any resolution other than procedural requires a majority of nine votes, including those of all the five permanent members who have veto power.

Like any political organization, the Security Council is no disinterested body. In any situation, its members’ votes reflect their national interests of the moment rather than the world’s good. France was dead set against deposing Saddam Hussein, and for its own good reasons. The Iraqi dictator, whom Mr Chirac addressed as “my dear friend” in his correspondence, was doing serious business with France. In the late 1970s, Mr Chirac, then prime minister, had negotiated a fat contract for the French to build an Iraqi nuclear reactor, the one that the Israelis bombed in 1981. Other contracts to develop new oil fields and to provide weapons followed, along with big loans. All that business entailed nice kickbacks paid to French agents and politicians, some of which went to political campaign chests, including Mr Chirac’s when he ran for the mayoralty of Paris. Besides, these dealings had an important foreign policy angle. Saddam Hussein was a main component of a French strategy to regain in the Middle East a foothold lost shortly after the Second World War.

France, however, voted in the UN to support the first Gulf War. The reasons were simple: endorsing by default a clear case of aggression was out of the question, and the UN mandate specifically prohibited any action other than getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Since George H. W. Bush could be trusted to play by the rules, the Iraqi dictator was likely to remain in power. Thus, the war was only a minor disturbance that did not seriously threaten France’s strategic and commercial interests. After the cease-fire, business between the two countries resumed as before, weapons and all, except for the circumvention of a UN embargo under the cover of a humanitarian “Oil for Food” program that provided opportunities for new shenanigans. French agents and politicians involved in the deals were paid with Iraqi oil options immediately negotiable, a fraction of the loot being kicked back to the Iraqi dictator. Germany and Russia were involved in the same machinations, and the administrator of the program, the UN Secretary’s own son, is said to have gotten his cut of the proceeds.

Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that George W. Bush met such a level of opposition in the Security Council when he moved to depose Saddam Hussein. For France, the main actor of the dissension, the stakes were too high, and so high that it threatened a veto in spite of prior assurances to Colin Powell that war would indeed be the acceptable consequence of an Iraqi negative response to Resolution 1441. It is highly probable that the French position contributed to Saddam Hussein’s contumacy and led to war.

Mr Kerry, who had made resonant statements in the Senate about the necessity of deposing the Iraqi dictator, recently declared that he too would have gone to war given the set of circumstances faced by President Bush. In that case, he would have met exactly the same kind of French opposition in the Security Council, even if he had presented the US position in his best diplomatic French. Any claim to the contrary flies in the face of reality. But then, on the campaign stump, Mr Kerry also said at different times that the war was wrong, that its timing was wrong, and that it should have been conducted differently---it is very difficult to know where Mr Kerry really stands on any matter. So, in all probability, he would have “worked” with France, Germany, and Russia toward a consensus “solution” allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power and to take advantage of the opportunities for mischief offered by Islamic terrorism. Kofi Annan then would have praised Mr Kerry’s tactful diplomacy, and Mr Chirac would have delivered in his most serious tone a laudatory speech with appropriate facial expressions to celebrate the American president’s wisdom and the enduring friendship between France and the US.

Now, how would the senator mend the damaged relations with France in the event he would win his bid for the presidency? Very few options are available, and they would have to be dictated by Mr Chirac. The plan is likely to include (1) contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq paid for by US taxpayers, (2) a French token military presence in Baghdad, presumably restricted to humanitarian activities, (3) US restraint in the investigation of the “Oil for Food” shenanigans, and (4) a scheme to indemnify France with US money for the losses of remitted loans made to Saddam Hussein. Of course, Germany will get its part of the spoils to reward Mr Schröder’s loyalty to Mr Chirac. In exchange, Mr Kerry will be able to claim that his diplomatic skills have saved old alliances, and all sides will blame the falling-out on Mr Bush, the mannerless Texan who cares only about US narrow interests such as national security. As to any French contribution to the cost of the war, which Mr Kerry promises to obtain, it should be filed under the rubric of wishful thinking. After all, this war is Mr Bush’s, is it not?

Anyway, that a pretender to the presidency would make much fuss about the views of France and the UN on a matter of US national security does not augur well for his general handling of our foreign policy as president. His implicit insistence on thinking of France as a goodwill ally is a troubling indication of his mettle. If this is his sincere belief, he is a fool who should take a good look at sixty years of political frictions between the two countries, and try to explain how Saddam Hussein’s henchmen got French passports so that they could discreetly seek refuge anywhere in Europe on the eve of the Iraqi war. In any case, it is likely that his conduct of foreign affairs will just be a continuation of Mrs Albright’s vision of an America that should defer to the UN and bogus allies and put its armed forces at their service.

So, if the senator wins the presidential race, be prepared to see a “true coalition” with the French presence of a company of army cooks churning out croissants for the Iraqi schoolchildren’s breakfast.