A peek at Chirac's `multipolar' world
Time for Europe, U.S. to bond again

Jim Hoagland. Jim Hoagland is a syndicated columnist based in Washington

February 6, 2004

PARIS -- If he is tempted to say "I told you so" about Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac stifles the urge completely during an hour-long conversation at the Elysee Palace. He insists on looking ahead, not back.

This allows him to bypass lingering differences with the Bush administration on the Middle East and to suggest instead that it is time to begin serious work on repairing French-American relations.

The quarrels of a year ago, when Chirac led foreign opposition to the impending war in Iraq and called for a more "multipolar" world, are not forgotten here any more than they are in Washington. But the chance to shrink the French-American disputes back to manageable proportions feels real, especially when Chirac describes specific steps that can--in fact, must, he says--be taken.

France's recurring criticisms of U.S. hegemony, the role of the dollar, Hollywood's taste and its power, and other topics have never been much welcome in Washington. But direct expressions of disagreement from Paris have often been useful when the dialogue is open enough, and friendly enough, to permit them to be considered seriously.

This has not been the case recently. Getting back to that modest state of relations is a worthwhile goal, even as differences persist.

So it may be progress when Chirac begins with what I count as a small semantic concession. (Words do still matter in France.) Multipolar, he says, is not a code word for challenging and reducing American power, as some critics charge. It is instead a way of describing a view of the world "that should reinforce the trans-Atlantic relationship."

"Inevitably in this new century we will see a number of important powers assert themselves," Chirac notes. "China, India, Europe, South America are examples. This leads to what I call a `multipolar world.' Given human nature, the development of a number of big powers--that is, of strong multiple poles--could expand the risk of conflict. Those dangers are already quite large due to the power of modern weapons.

"So it is important in light of this for the countries of Europe and America, which share common roots and values, and globally have the same interests, to strengthen their union, precisely to work together to avoid such risks," he says, speaking in French.

"Ce n'est pas du wishful," he adds, speaking the final word in English for emphasis as he denies that what he is advocating is wishful thinking. "This is a positive vision of the world as it is and as it soon will be. Compared to that, differences on Iraq should take on less importance."

A chance to begin putting that sentiment into practice may come as early as Friday when Chirac's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, meets with Secretary of State Colin Powell over breakfast in New York. Relations between the two key officials have been particularly strained since de Villepin openly challenged Powell over Iraq last winter at the United Nations and then spearheaded France's opposition to the war.

The diplomatic arguments have not prevented French and American anti-terrorist officials from establishing cooperation that both sides describe as effective. Nor has it stopped 150 French special operations troops from fighting under U.S. command in Afghanistan.

Under Chirac, France has in fact reshaped its relationship with NATO to take into account the changing nature of global insecurity. He underlines this by telling me: "You have to be realistic in a changing world. We have updated our vision, which once held that NATO had geographic limits. The idea of a regional NATO no longer exists, as the alliance's involvement in Afghanistan demonstrates. And we are not against a role in Iraq for NATO if it comes to that."

Moreover, Washington and Paris have in the last few days come to agreement on a new command structure for NATO's Rapid Reaction Force, French officials report. The United States had initially resisted assigning two key slots to French generals but relented last week rather than prolong a debilitating dispute that would have kept French troops out of the new force.

The White House is still considering an invitation from Chirac to President Bush to join the 60th anniversary of the allied D-Day landings in Normandy on June 6. Chirac is also willing to host Bush at a dinner and private conversations in Paris on the night before the formal ceremonies.

This is a conversation worth having despite--or perhaps precisely because of--the big differences that loom unresolved between these two leaders and their countries. Paris is not turning, but it is ready to talk.

----------

E-mail: jimhoagland@washpost.com


Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

Then, the next June 6 Chirac would repair relationship between united state if i believe that's i read in English, well, good idea.
And president Chirac want to speak about multipôlar world but it's reality since the world doesn't lived in cold war.

During the cold war, the capablity and the economic power of the eastern bloc were overestimated.
The multipolar world is probably older than we think.

Yes,but during the year of 50's the USA tried to see better which military power have soviets.
For that they used aiplanes which flying over URSS territory.
A lot of planes has been destroyed by soviet.

It's only fair that they tried to spy on the USSR. But did they really say what they had discovered ?
Oversestimating the power of the adversary was an efficient way of getting a more generous budget.

having read about the benfits of 'multipolarity' in europe and the world at large from 1915-1989 it is something that i wouldnt really encourage.

the usa defends europe anyway, its got something like 100,000 troops in europe. still.

people convieniently forget the fact that the usa has intervened, albeit late, in 2 world wars, ran the marshall plan and then helped defend europe during the cold war.....

this means that the usa pays about 4% of its gdp on defence, still, and europe pays around 1.5-2%, apart from britain and france which both put over 2.5% in each......

anyway if the states took its troops out of europe then europe then europe would need an army to match the status of being one of the 'poles.' you are talking about a significant hike in tax to pay for all the military apparatus.....

this simply will not happen. to increase military spending to 4% of gdp, europe would need to increase its taxes by over 8%....yeah right! it aint gonna happen.....multipolarity is a dream....chiracs dream......let the USA 'rule' the world (and pay for it) and the EU can ride the peace dividend...

personally, for me, the average man on the street, selling this multipolarity malarkey and raising taxes for defence will not go down with your voters....

admittedly, i'm not too keen on the current incumbent in the white house (who is?!) but hopefully from november 2004 things should normalise a bit.

Originally posted by dom let the USA 'rule' the world (and pay for it)

USA doesn't pay for it. The huge federal deficit and the trade imbalance are compensated by the inflow of foreign capital.
Mainly from Europe and Asia.

when we plug their deficit, its not as if we are getting nothing,

japan and china own large chunks of the us national debt as a result and there is substantial foriegn ownership of companies.

warren buffet said that something like 5% of the us economy is owned by foreigners......sure the EU and asia are paying for the USAs military through internal investment in the USA but the problem for the states is that year on year it is getting more into debt and more and more of its economy/companies are being owned by foreign hands....

fabb. ie. that foriegn capital buys something....i.e. chunks of america, hell AXA alone probably owns significant shareholdings in many US companies.

Originally posted by dom
[/B]

That's true, but the purchase of US enterprise by foreign groups comes with a high debt for those groups. I don't know about Japan but the most evident examples for France are Vivendi-Universal and Credit Lyonnais. And this is a debt that got to be reimboursed. Well, it doesn't alway work.

this means that the usa pays about 4% of its gdp on defence, still, and europe pays around 1.5-2%, apart from britain and france which both put over 2.5% in each......

anyway if the states took its troops out of europe then europe then europe would need an army to match the status of being one of the 'poles.' you are talking about a significant hike in tax to pay for all the military apparatus.....

this simply will not happen. to increase military spending to 4% of gdp, europe would need to increase its taxes by over 8%....yeah right!

Ah, but they won't hesitate to raise taxes for their favored social programs. What's a little more to become that "counterbalance" they have always dreamed of? ;)

Europe does not have to spend 4% of its GDP on defense to be a balancing force in the world.

USA spend more money for defense, to compared (2003):
USA ______ 366 billion dollards
GB ______ 38.4billion
France ______ 31.1billion
Germany ______ 24.6billion
but it's not effortlessly (% of PIB):
USA ________3.5%
UK ________2.3%
France ________1.7%
Deutchland ________1.2%

Outdated, France is spending 2,5% now.

ummm, yes it does, europe's defense capability is so far behind that of the states its untrue. it would probably have to spend far more than 6% for about a decade as it has so much catching up to do. The US has something like 10 aircraft carriers, Europe has about 3.

the point i am making is that i'd prefer to let the states defend europe and not waste our taxes on weapons. i'd prefer to have the NHS and other public services than another 200 eurofighters and 200,000 troops for example.

let the us pay for defence.

DOM is a good dog.

Very nice and smart!!!!!

USA spend more money for defense, to compared (2003):
USA ______ 366 billion dollards
GB ______ 38.4billion
France ______ 31.1billion
Germany ______ 24.6billion
but it's not effortlessly (% of PIB):
USA ________3.5%
UK ________2.3%
France ________1.7%
Deutchland ________1.2%

actually, the us defense is spending has been increased to 418 billion. how can anyone think they can get by on a measily 366 billion?

That's ironic, right ?

According to CIA factbook, France has the biggest defense budget in Europe in 2003. UK is second. I think it is the result of 1/ Chirac's decision to increase defense spending 2/ Higher Euro which even when translated in PPP gives French Armed Forces more buying power for imported gears from outside Eurozone.

I think the gap will increase in 2004 since French spending will increase by 8% at least and the UK mod has recently announced a round of cuts.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

William Pfaff: France is in no rush to change

Leadership in Paris

PARIS No other European country fascinates Americans as much as France does. It is a morbid interest, no doubt, usually inspired by annoyance or fury at France's resistance to American rectitude, expressed in condescending comment on France's assumed backwardness - or, in the preferred epithet of the Bush administration, its "irrelevance."
.
But if France were irrelevant, of course, no one would bother.
.
The French earned anger last year for blocking United Nations Security Council approval of the American and British invasion of Iraq. Iraq will undoubtedly provide next year's argument as well, since uprisings and disintegration in that country are sure to continue. A re-elected George W. Bush or a newly elected John Kerry will redouble the national stake in the losing game; both now seem committed to that.
.
President Jacques Chirac of France is written off by Washington as adamantly against further European implication in America's Middle Eastern adventure. Hence American interest in his replacement, and in the challenge offered Chirac by Nicolas Sarkozy, the economics minister. He is the ambitious son of Hungarian immigrants, a lawyer rather than a product of the established French "grandes ecoles" system, which serves as a feeder to government posts.
.
He recently visited the United States, wangled an interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and conducted himself with the press, as he does at home, as the man about to take over France.
.
This excited much interest among Americans, who had never heard of him before. But Sarkozy somewhat damaged his presentation as the cosmopolitan European by insisting on speaking English, which he doesn't do very well.
.
Sarkozy excited conservatives by suggesting that he is a great admirer of American ways of economic management, lauding the American entrepreneurial spirit and suggesting that France has a lot to learn.
.
As France's newly appointed economics minister, however, he has supported state sponsorship of "national champions" in industry, sought an easing of European rules on balanced budgets, and in other respects disappointed the American Enterprise Institute and The Wall Street Journal.
.
Although he currently is vastly popular among the militants of the presidential party, the UMP, which he is expected to try to take over, Sarkozy will not become president, at least not in 2007.
.
His aggressive ways may erode his youthful charm during the three years that remain before the scheduled presidential election. His enemies, Chirac first among them, have time to act. He lacks gravitas, the seriousness and maturity that the French have in the past expected in their presidents. He speaks in the popular idiom and, to some ears, with a trace of foreign accent.
.
Despite much concern in France over the economy and the prospects of a European Union with 25 members, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin may prove a sounder political bet for the long run. Most commentators in France would seem to disagree, but some share my view.
.
In his cautious way, Raffarin has managed to put through significant reforms in the national health system and the retirement regime of government functionaries, as well as decentralizing the administration. His conservative predecessor in the first Chirac presidency, Alain Juppé, tried similar reforms and provoked something like a popular revolt.
.
The daily newspaper Le Monde has campaigned against Raffarin for some time, and the Socialist Party demands his replacement because the government parties lost badly in regional and European elections this spring. The people have repudiated the government, it argues.
.
The left wants very much to return to the parliamentary system of the Third and Fourth Republics, which they believe more authentically democratic. It argues that as the government has been defeated on regional issues and in the election for the European Parliament, Chirac should call new national elections.
.
The left is hoist by its own petard. It, as well as a part of the right, wanted, and in 2002 got, a reduction in the presidential term from seven to five years, a fundamental constitutional change. If France had stayed with the old seven-year presidential term, meant to produce nonconcordant terms for president and Parliament, which is elected for five years, the left would have a better case to make.
.
Under the old Constitution, a government's electoral defeat or severe setback was expected to cause the president either to call for a new Parliament - and resign if it failed to support him - or appoint a nonpartisan prime minister and cabinet.
.
That Gaullist assumption has been defied by both of Charles de Gaulle's successors, François Mitterrand, a Socialist, and the post-Gaullist Chirac. They preferred to run no personal political risks. The result is that the present government will last until its term is up, and American hopes that Paris might return to "relevance" will have to be postponed, once again.
.

Yeah, but as the article says, Sarkozy won't be president in 2007. The popularity of the UMP is at its lowest. And most likely the next president will be a socialist (I'm not socialist, so we can't say I'm biased, but one got to be realist on that). Maybe in 2012 then.

Sarkozy excited conservatives by suggesting that he is a great admirer of American ways of economic management, lauding the American entrepreneurial spirit and suggesting that France has a lot to learn.

For that reason, he won't be president.
The French wouldn't vote for a pro-american.

For that reason, he won't be president.
The French wouldn't vote for a pro-american.

the pro-americanism or anti-americanism of a candidat has never been a reason of choice for the french. People vote for a candidat about unemployment, safety, economy, etc.
Chirac is only approved by 35% of the french according to the polls. Being anti-american doesn't help at all.

I doubt the policy with America really overcome the interior problems.

@Ning & Exarchus : aren't you confusing France and America ?
In the US, only the interior policy matters to the voters.
In France, the relationship with America is a real issue. French people don't want a president that mimics the way America is governed. The cherish the "exception française". I don't blame them... as long as this exception is not synonymous with sclerosis and inefficiency.

That's your opinion.


But Sarkozy is the most popular member of the UMP actually.

Being popular is not enough to get elected.

Being popular is not enough to get elected.


True, he won't be elected, not because of his american policy. But because the UMP is very unpopular and will be sanctioned at the next elections. That's a fact that we can't deny that the UMP lost lot of its popularity. Looking at the regional elections.

@Ning & Exarchus : aren't you confusing France and America ?
In the US, only the interior policy matters to the voters.
In France, the relationship with America is a real issue. French people don't want a president that mimics the way America is governed. The cherish the "exception française". I don't blame them... as long as this exception is not synonymous with sclerosis and inefficiency.

sorry but relationship with America has never been decisive to be elected in France ... It's absolutly not a real issue.
Candidats never speak about America in their speech before elections but about economy, safety, unemployment, interior problems, outsourcing, etc.
At the last elections in 2002, the main issue was safety.

Ning, Sarkozy's pro-americanism shows that he is not fit to rule France, for he doesn't know where France's interests rest. He was in favor of the Irak war and too coward to claim it out loud (but whispered it to the pro-American press --Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération-- hence his popularity with the media). But France's involvement in Irak under Bush's rule was not in France's interest. This was enough for me to see that there is nothing behind Skz's "bulle médiatique".
BTW if you want to become president of France you don't go on a pitiful trip to Washington and make a ridiculous speech in English there. Sarkozy will go the way of Michel Noir and Bernard Tapie.

BTW, I have to admit that his speech was pretty ridiculous and long... to say nothing.
And he is overmediatised. Yet looking at who'll take Chirac succession at the UMP for candidate, he is the most probable. Juppe is toasted, maybe Madelin but he was pro war and openly claimed it, without mentioning his past in the G.U.D. the extrem right-winged anti communist group.

Actually Ben, I disagree with you on war in Iraq and the interest of France, it was in the interests of France to go in Iraq with the US army and get what they want to give us. France lost more by opposing the war than it should have won by following the USA.

BTW if you want to become president of France you don't go on a pitiful trip to Washington and make a ridiculous speech in English there.

I agree.

Exarchus, France is no mercenary nation (leave that to the coalition of the willing to be bribed). We are holders to the international order as permanent members of the UN security council and as the last standing nation of Europe able to mount on its own a coordinated military offensive anywhere in the world (the UK does not have that for it has abandoned its indepence in key military areas to the US 40 years ago). Following Bush in a wrongheaded useless comically bad war would have been a catastrophy for France's international standing, it would have meant abandonning Europe's leadership to Tony Blair and it would have told the entire world that there is only one voice in the West, that of any clique in Washington, DC.

Then it's not about interest by ethic. That's what I say, I was opposed to the war, but it wasn't about interest.

Maintaining an order, keeping a leadership position...all that means: a national interest. It has many massive political consequences, that is moral as well as material consequences. Powerfull countries are the ones which cannot be bribed in the short run and which are able to show it. C'est un investissement, pas un backchiche! Honor is a tool of power, not an ethical fancy.

No one cares about it. Other won't have refused to deal with us if we went in Iraq too. They just deal with the best.

UK have this role too, but they are in. And they have no problem with their business. When it comes about interest, saying no to the war wasn't the thing to do. It's a different problem.

what ever you guys do, don't elect a 'tony blair'. we don't need another poodle...

I think where France's national interest (in terms of economy) is concerned, it would be best for the war not to happen at all (French got lots of money from oil, military equipment and selling food and managing the oil for food programme). However if the war was to happen then France's interests (and Iraq's - and everyone for that matter) would have been served best by being a part of it and allowing UN backing for it. Then a strong multinational UN force could be in Iraq, there would be a lot less of an issue about the US just being after Iraqi oil - because they wouldn't have had to control it. There would be a lot less after fighting in Iraq too I should imagine, and no danger of interim governments and such like from being accused of being US lakeys (although possibly UN puppets instead).

what ever you guys do, don't elect a 'tony blair'. we don't need another poodle...
Yeah but an anti American President who wants a European superstate wit France at the head is hardly appealing is it?

And who is "we"? He is hardly a poodle, I think he was up for it just as much as Bush - maybe more so - afterall he took part in bombings of suspected wmd locations in conjunction with Clinton years ago. There are quite a few disagreements the UK has had with the US (think Kyoto and trade sanctions).

France has opposed the war but it did happen anyway. It's kinda like saying if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. We can't deny now that France lost more (when it comes to economy only of course) by opposing the war. In Iraq but also by various boycott.


And, actually the first reason that France opposed the war is that the largest part of population was opposed to the war (including me). There was a strong political and social pressure on the president about this and it would have been insane to approve the war.
Without mentioning that France wasn't the only one to oppose the war. Actually the first reason that the UN didn't approved this war is the USA failed to gather enough vote to pass their resolution and accused France of the failure. It sounds very anti French from the American and British leaders to stygmatise France of their own failure.

And what did Chirac made of Anti American? I hear that all the time but technicaly what did he do that's anti US?

I can answer for him exarchus : "he undermined our efforts to bring democracy and freedom in irak" .....

Examples I can think of readilly are things like the US can't comment on Turkey in the EU (dispite the fact Bush was in Turkey and that is obviously a big issue there - and dispite the fact Chirac sees fit to comment on numerous other world issues - eg Israel - no other leader in the EU bothered to make it an issue). Or where he tells new EU countries that they missed a good opportunity to "shut up" about support for the US in Iraq.

I'm sure chirac would like to be the modern day De Gaul, preserve French influence around the world, and America is the biggest threat to that for him.

About Turkey, Bush didn't had to tell the EU to do. Simply. And the strongest critics on this forum about the Bush speech didn't came from France.

About Israel, seen what is Sharon policy about France? Anyone in the USA or UK to call him anti French? Chirac possible answers are totaly fair considering what Sharon has the habit to say about France and the money he gives to French jews to live France (so yes it's an internal affair) for quiet some times (French Jews receive some money if they live France for Israel for antisemitic problem and for protection in Israel, that's for years and is quiet un-noticed in the English speaking media). And anyway, what did Chirac said about Israel policy?

About eastern europe, wasn't it rather because they accused France of opposing the war for economic interests? Or that they accused France to sell missiles to Iraq before the war? Anyway, still I don't see what's anti american in this. (Actually it would be interesting to have the speech of the eastern europe president before the one of Chirac about this).

And BTW he didn't said "Shut up". He said they missed a good opportunity to not speak (de se taire), shut up is (de la boucler).

I'm not pro Chirac at all, but I think the British and American media (especially Murdoch band wich own nothing in France) only say what they want to say to point only half of the truth. And people believe it, and so France is the anti American, antisemitic, gaulist nation (even if they don't follow the NY post, the Sun or Fox News the idea is spreading more or less).

I think chirac is far from perfection, but I think france gets an unfair and unbalanced judgment on some issues, like antisemitism for instance. I wouldn't eb surprised if there was more antifrench acts in the us than antisemistic acts in france last year. Except that here politicians didn't say it was normal . But well, it's not a secret that neocons are particulary in love with France. ;)

At least we won't have him for president in 2007.

About Turkey, Bush didn't had to tell the EU to do. Simply. And the strongest critics on this forum about the Bush speech didn't came from France.

About Israel, seen what is Sharon policy about France? Anyone in the USA or UK to call him anti French? Chirac possible answers are totaly fair considering what Sharon has the habit to say about France and the money he gives to French jews to live France (so yes it's an internal affair) for quiet some times (French Jews receive some money if they live France for Israel for antisemitic problem and for protection in Israel, that's for years and is quiet un-noticed in the English speaking media). And anyway, what did Chirac said about Israel policy?

About eastern europe, wasn't it rather because they accused France of opposing the war for economic interests? Or that they accused France to sell missiles to Iraq before the war? Anyway, still I don't see what's anti american in this.

I'm not pro Chirac at all, but I think the British and American media (especially Murdoch band wich own nothing in France) only say what they want to say to point only half of the truth. And people believe it, and so France is the anti American, antisemitic, gaulist nation.


Re the israel thing, my only point is Chirac does comment about foreign affairs (i.e. not directly to do with France). I don't disagree with anything you say there re Israel. I don't like sharon - he goes on my list with Chirac and Bush - and in a different way I dislike Burlesconi). My point is when in Turkey why shouldn't Bush comment on things affecting Turkey - there would be little point being there otherwise.

About the eastern european thing, he was telling them to shut up because they were siding with America. He blatently doesn't like America - well maybe I should rephrase, he doesn't like America calling all the shots without being able to influence it or American companies or american culture invading France (as do many French and other europeans it seems). That's one reason he is so keen on integrating the EU ever more tightly I believe and why this article is commenting on a fairly minor semantic shift in phrasing of language by Chirac.

I am guilty of reading Murdoch Press (having a copy of the SUnday times infront of me) However that is not to say I don't read any other newspapers, I do make a point of reading a variety and the BBC probably plays a bigger hand in my oppinions than the Times, but then I also look at the Guardian, Independant and Evening Standard, and occasionally, when I can cope with a bit of French, Le Monde . In terms of Media ownership however I feel a lot more confident in the UK's media being (overall -obviously Newscorp has a big hand) more likely to be balanced and less reason to be biased than France or Italy for example. I can see what you say about the possibility that murdoch press can be guilty of showing Chirac along with half truths (though I don't understand why anyone would want to do that).

I read that Dassult (that make the fighter aircraft) owns Le Figaro and 70 other titles (though I don't know how minor), whilst Lagardere (a co owner of EADs) is also France's biggest magazine publisher. Apparently by one calculation 70% of french press is now in control of defence companies, which is a worrying statistic.

Of course in Italy there is the conflict of interest that the Italian leader owns a lot of the Italian television media.

Would be interesting to see accurate listings of shareholders and their other interests on all newspublications.

What I say about the press is that even people who don't read and agree with newsgroup are more or less influenced. Lots of people are reading those and it affect the official speech and policy wich in the end has its influence on the people (even those who originaly don't read it).

About Chirac and eastern Europe, I said it didn't said "shut up", Shut up is more "vos gueule" or "bouclez la" than "manquer une occasion de se taire". And I would like to have the speechs of the eastern europe presidents to have a clearer idea on the matter. But no one have them it seems.



Lagardere is more a press group and media than industrial. And the other large French groups are Bouygues and Vivendi-Universal wich own some serious interest in the USA.


For Israel, maybe if Israel wasn't offering money for French jews to leave they wouldn't be bothered. But still once again, what did Chirac said against Israel?

'Exarchus, France is no mercenary nation (leave that to the coalition of the willing to be bribed). We are holders to the international order as permanent members of the UN security council and as the last standing nation of Europe able to mount on its own a coordinated military offensive anywhere in the world (the UK does not have that for it has abandoned its indepence in key military areas to the US 40 years ago). Following Bush in a wrongheaded useless comically bad war would have been a catastrophy for France's international standing, it would have meant abandonning Europe's leadership to Tony Blair and it would have told the entire world that there is only one
voice in the West, that of any clique in Washington, DC.'

this is one of the most pretentious statements i've ever read. britain does have an independent military capacity...we do have an independent nuclear deterrant. chirac?! pah! he sold the nuclear power plant to hussein in 1979! nuclear tests, sinking greenpeace ships, supporting the CAP which impoverishes millions in the 3rd world, telling the eastern european countries to 'shut up'.... jeez....

'Exarchus, France is no mercenary nation (leave that to the coalition of the willing to be bribed). We are holders to the international order as permanent members of the UN security council and as the last standing nation of Europe able to mount on its own a coordinated military offensive anywhere in the world (the UK does not have that for it has abandoned its indepence in key military areas to the US 40 years ago). Following Bush in a wrongheaded useless comically bad war would have been a catastrophy for France's international standing, it would have meant abandonning Europe's leadership to Tony Blair and it would have told the entire world that there is only one
voice in the West, that of any clique in Washington, DC.'

this is one of the most pretentious statements i've ever read. britain does have an independent military capacity...we do have an independent nuclear deterrant. chirac?! pah! he sold the nuclear power plant to hussein in 1979! nuclear tests, sinking greenpeace ships, supporting the CAP which impoverishes millions in the 3rd world, telling the eastern european countries to 'shut up'.... jeez....




Where does this speech comes from and why is there (....)? I higly doubt Chirac would have ever said this.

I would like to know more, especially I didn't heared of this one.


And for the 3rd time, he didn't said shut up. But "taire" just doesn't exit in English. That's not a reason to transform a word in another one. I'll repeat it as many times as necessary.

this speech is very well known. chirac was pissed off that a large number of eastern european countries supported the usa in the war in iraq and said that 'they missed a good opportunity to shut up.' who does chirac think he is? the fuhrer?

i'm not particularly bothered, it just means that the new countries will be more inclined to vote for the more atlanticist countries in europe, its fine by me. but i think it was a serious strategic error by chirac and very short sighted.

this speech is very well known. chirac was pissed off that a large number of eastern european countries supported the usa in the war in iraq and said that 'they missed a good opportunity to shut up.' who does chirac think he is? the fuhrer?

i'm not particularly bothered, it just means that the new countries will be more inclined to vote for the more atlanticist countries in europe, its fine by me. but i think it was a serious strategic error by chirac and very short sighted.


I'm talking about the mercenary nation and ..... we are holder to the international order.

I'm not talking about the eastern europe, all the first part of your last post. I don't know where you got that from.



He didn't said: "they missed a good opportunity to shut up." I'm still trying to figure who translated that because "manquer une opportunité de se taire" isn't shut up. The verb "Taire" doesn't exist at all in English and it's not Shut up (5th time I say it on this topic). It can't be translated in English but it's not that rude and it's not a direct order (it's much more suggective).

And no offence, but I'm sure this translation mistake is a volontary mistake. And that they wanted (media and politics) to use it against France once again to stygmatise it for their own failure in the UN negociation.

Lagardere is more a press group and media than industrial. And the other large French groups are Bouygues and Vivendi-Universal wich own some serious interest in the USA.



Arnaud Lagardere is the joint chairman of EADS, Lagardere own 15% of EADs. A significant stake in a huge defence and aerospace company.

Vivendi-Universal sold all it's non US publishing comapanies to amoungst others Lagardere.

Bouygues has lots of other business besides media, though consruction, telecomunications etc are their main other activities. Seems worrying that such a huge group also has media interests, but at least directly it is not defence related.

cheers, i guess he probably meant that 'it would have been a good idea for them to have kept quiet about it'.....i guess you have to be careful with your words if you are a politician!

Arnaud Lagardere is the joint chairman of EADS, Lagardere own 15% of EADs. A significant stake in a huge defence and aerospace company.

Vivendi-Universal sold all it's non US publishing comapanies to amoungst others Lagardere.

Bouygues has lots of other business besides media, though consruction, telecomunications etc are their main other activities. Seems worrying that such a huge group also has media interests, but at least directly it is not defence related.


The TV channel Canal+ still beling to VU, and so the sattelite broadcasting group Canal Sattelite.


About Bouygues, I never said they were in other sectors than communication. But they aren't in defense, they are in building construction (didn't they built the Channel Tunnel?). But since you said so, no worry.

@Dom

I'm sure this mistake (technicaly, it's not a mistake because this word just doesn't exist in English as a verb but for me it's one) is done in a purpose. It seems so evident to me that I wonder how a professional can do that (totaly transforming the sentence).

About Bouygues, ... (didn't they built the Channel Tunnel?).

Err no idea, but apparently they built a scraper in la Defense I think (I was checking to see if they had any dealings with the defence sector lol).

Yeah but an anti American President who wants a European superstate wit France at the head is hardly appealing is it?

And who is "we"? He is hardly a poodle, I think he was up for it just as much as Bush - maybe more so - afterall he took part in bombings of suspected wmd locations in conjunction with Clinton years ago. There are quite a few disagreements the UK has had with the US (think Kyoto and trade sanctions).

how much percentage of the UK population were against the war in Iraq? a lot huh? but blair still went to war. why?

August 28, 2004

By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Aug. 27 - Clearly the American election is on the mind of the president of France.

When President Jacques Chirac stood before his ambassadorial corps on Friday, there was no hint that the relationship between France and the United States had suffered one bit because of his fierce opposition to the American-led war in Iraq.

"The U.S. presidential election is due to take place in a few weeks' time," Mr. Chirac said toward the beginning of his speech.

"As a friend and ally of the United States for over two centuries now," he said, "France believes that, today and tomorrow, a balanced and dynamic trans-Atlantic partnership is essential to meet our common challenges."

He made no mention of either candidate, although it is no secret that he and President Bush are not at all close.

Nor did he criticize the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein last year, lavishing praise on the United Nations for restoring sovereignty to Iraq and portraying France as a participant in the process.

"France, which supported the restoration of a sovereign Iraq, fully integrated into its regional environment, wants to accompany it on its road to recovery," he said.

The Security Council resolution transferring authority to a new Iraqi government "commits us all to the same objective: namely the forming of a democratically elected government and return to civil peace in a unified Iraq," he added.

Mr. Chirac said nothing about the violence and terror in Iraq, except to say that the restoration of sovereignty was "merely the start of a long and what is proving to be an arduous and hazardous process. But at least we have embarked on it."

By contrast, at a news conference with Mr. Bush before their dinner at Élysée Palace to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-Day in June, Mr. Chirac described Iraq as a place where "disorder prevails,'' adding that he did not share Mr. Bush's view that the liberation of Iraq from Mr. Hussein was comparable to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.

"History does not repeat itself," he sniffed.

But Mr. Chirac is a thoroughly practical leader, and France was once one of Iraq's largest trading partners and arms suppliers.

So in his speech on Friday, Mr. Chirac said that "with a view to elections scheduled for early 2005," France was "open to dialogue with the Iraqi authorities on all subjects: the training of security forces, the debt and any other issue related to the reconstruction and well-being of the Iraqi people."

He added that to this end, he would hold talks in Paris early next month with his Iraqi counterpart, Ghazi al-Yawar.

Mr. Chirac has described Iraq as a "potentially rich country" despite its debt and said France would be willing to support what he called a substantial reduction in the Iraqi debt, but only about 50 percent. The United States, by contrast, has urged a 90 percent debt reduction for Iraq, while Japan and Britain favor about 80 percent.

Mr. Chirac has opposed giving NATO a meaningful role in training the country's military and police on the ground in Iraq.

France is not eager to see NATO personnel - perhaps including French troops - coming under United States command, nor does it want to further internationalize the current force in Iraq.

At a news conference at the summit meeting of the Group of 8 major industrial nations at Sea Island, Ga., in June, Mr. Chirac warned against the risks of NATO "meddling" in Iraq.

In his speech on Friday, he had harsh words for Iran, which has said it will resume producing parts for centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The enriched uranium can be used in nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons.

"Iran must imperatively understand that it is responsible for creating the conditions for confidence on the part of the international community, in particular by respecting its commitment to suspend enrichment," he said.

Still, Mr. Chirac is eager to salvage an agreement that France, Germany and Britain made with Iran last year in which Tehran pledged to allow stricter inspections of nuclear sites and to suspend production of enriched uranium.

But Iran has accused the trio of breaking its part of the bargain by failing to end the International Atomic Energy Agency's investigations of its nuclear activities and not providing Iran with the advanced technology it said it had been promised.

Without mentioning the Bush administration, Mr. Chirac delivered a scathing criticism of the absence of a negotiating process to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians, saying, "It is essential that the international community assume its responsibilities, that it acknowledge the disastrous results of its inaction."

And without mentioning Israel, he criticized its policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, saying, "Occupation and settlements are unacceptable and must stop."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company