posted on the web on April 13 2003

Country Data

Full Name: Republic of France Capital: Paris Population: 59,765,983 (2002 est.) Location: Europe Total area: 547,030 sq km Language: French Ethnic groups: French 93% Religions: Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant 2%, Muslim 5-10%, Jewish 1% Currency: Euro IGO memberships: G-8, EU, NATO, UN, UNSC, WHO, WTO Internet site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Source: CIA World Factbook

With "freedom fries" making their appearance in Congress cafeterias, diplomatic channels at an impasse and CNN running a 24/7 media circus with France starring in the role of arch nemesis, it appears that the crisis over Iraq has irrevocably soured relations between the White House and the Elysée. How is it that two allied nations, with ostensibly the same objectives have found themselves embroiled in a conflict that has escalated into unsanctioned war?

While the diatribes of Bush and Blair would suggest otherwise, France is clearly not isolated in its anti-interventionist stance. Applauded by fellow members of the United Nations, firmly backed not only by Germany, Russia, China, Canada, and the Vatican but also, as evidenced by the protests of February 15th, much of the world’s population, Chirac can safely assume that he, not Bush, is sitting in the majority camp. With countless Americans adding their voice to the opposition, this is not the time to ask what France has done wrong during this crisis, but what they have done right.

Although reasons for contention between the two administrations have at this point far surpassed the issue of Iraqi disarmament, the dispute nonetheless centres more around a clash over "means” than a disagreement over "ends”. France is not ignorant to the threat terrorism poses to the international system. As in the United States, intelligence and defence measures have been heightened significantly since the attacks of September 11th. Furthermore, contrary to current claims that France’s opposition is evidence of an unwillingness to use force when necessary, past actions demonstrate that this is not the case. Need the US be reminded that as a member state of NATO the French government was among the first to offer them military assistance during their campaign in Afghanistan?

Yet while concurring with the United States about the need to resolve the threat posed by terrorism, France does not accept that the launch of a pre-emptive attack against Saddam is a warranted measure. At all times the burden of proof for war has lain with the United States, and as yet they have failed to convince the bulk of the international community that the situation at hand demands violent intervention. Terrorism and WMDs do pose a legitimate threat to international order, but unprovoked war against Iraq is more likely to act as a catalyst for, rather than a deterrent against, future attacks. One only has to examine the effect of special operations in Pakistan during 2001 to recognise the danger of intervening in places where one’s presence is not welcome. Moreover, the decision to invade despite the fact that weapons inspectors have failed to produce conclusive evidence that Saddam poses either an immediate or an unacceptable threat, only threatens to further destabilise an already volatile region.

Whether or not Bush’s campaign to wipe-out Bin Laden is justified is therefore beyond the point. France is not challenging the War against Terrorism, it is challenging the logic behind making Iraq the central target. Saddam Hussein simply does not pose the most immediate threat to international peace and stability. Furthermore, attacking Iraq on the grounds of its weapons program, when countries such as North Korea not only possess nuclear capability but are actively anti-American, is illogical.

Do not make the mistake of construing French hesitancy as incomprehension of threat or a fear of action. France too was at the front lines in 1991, and paid witness to the massacre of the Kurdish people. The French do not repudiate the abhorrence of Saddam’s regime. They are however, conscious of the fact that he is neither the sole nor the worst of dictatorial leaders. Rather than representing an attempt to rationalise Hussein’s tyranny however, this observation simply adds further reason to question Bush’s motives in Iraq. With the War against Terrorism flailing, it is patently clear that the US administration is substituting Saddam Hussein for Bin Laden in a desperate attempt to gain a more concrete target as well as more tangible results. Yet their bid to present national interest as being of international concern has failed.

In launching his campaign against the "Axis of Evil” Bush simultaneously instituted a vision of international relations wherein pre-emptive force could be justified as a means of conflict prevention. France’s objection to this doctrine of peace through war, not only reflects a fundamental ideological divide between the two countries, but also its role within the European Union. The EU has integrated to a point where maintaining harmonious inter-state relations is of paramount importance, not only within the Union itself, but within the international system more generally. Today, France remains dedicated to the principles of the rule of law, diplomacy, human rights and democracy, with the use of force considered legitimate only as a last recourse. This explains why the French government is so anxious to ensure that the United Nations never becomes a tool for attaining national interest, but retains its role as a permanent instrument for restraint, and systematic regulation.

There is no doubt that, regardless of the war’s outcome, the current crisis over Iraq will have serious implications for international politics. By disregarding the will of the Security Council and adopting an openly hegemonic stance, the Bush administration has not only fundamentally undermined the function of the United Nations, but also the doctrines of diplomacy, democracy and international law. Having turned a deaf ear to worldwide cries for peace, it is now sickening to see the United States evoke democracy as a justification for their campaign against Iraq. With the Kyoto Accords and the International Criminal Court already undermined by US unilateralism, the current crisis only adds to the dangerous precedent that has already been set by the Bush administration.

The French population is in no way blind to the fact that their government’s position is neither universally endorsed, nor flawless. Clearly Chirac has a personal interest in creating an image of himself as a defender of peace. Not simply does he have reason to distract attention from domestic issues, but placating the Muslim community, the primary minority group in France, holds its evident advantages. Nevertheless, in view of the serious implications taking such a stance holds for Franco-American and Anglo-French relations, this can only be construed as a minor factor, and in itself does not suffice to explain French opposition. Bush on the other hand, with his popularity rating wavering, recession looming, and the Presidential election only a year away, stands to gain far more through orchestrated war than Chirac does by opposing it.

Ultimately, the crisis over Iraq will pass, and if the US succeeds in assuring it is a quick, relatively bloodless war the Republicans might even escape in one piece. The likelihood however, that America’s reputation, along with relations between the United States and France will do the same is far less certain. While Bush’s decision to act unilaterally was opposed by a significant portion of the American population, in France as in the majority of countries, the distinction between the objectives of the American government and those of the American people is far from clear to most. For the sake of future stability one can only hope that the French and American governments, along with their citizens, can rise above the current conflict and renew their centuries old ties based on a shared dedication to liberty, equality and brotherhood.

This article is submitted by students at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences-po Paris)

Fabrice Serodes (France), Jodi Latham (Australia) and Curtis Ried (US)

Contributors: Vanessa Deas (UK and France), Sahar Hakakian (US) Baptiste Martin (France), Lucie Mattera (France), Raphaëlle Sauvé(France)