January 12, 2004

"ALLIES"

Charles Krauthammer in Time:

When the Iraq war began, the French Foreign Minister refused a reporter's question as to which side he wanted to win. This was not a mere expression of pique. When the existential enemy was Nazism or communism, the world rallied to the American protector. But Arab-Islamic radicalism is different. Its hatreds are wide, but its strategic focus is America. Its monument is ground zero. Ground zero is not in Paris.

Given the number of anti-western activists resident in France, the French Foreign Minister might one day regret not taking sides. Krauthammer concludes: “The grand alliances are dead. With a few trusted friends, America must carry on alone.” Sadly, he’s right. Unilateralism -- as such it is called -- is more the result of the US being shunned by former allies than it is of the US deciding to act without international support. International support was invited. Few cared to sign up.

(Via Meyer Rafael)

Posted by Tim Blair at January 12, 2004 04:06 AM
Comments

As Glenn Reynolds pointed out on his blog, all countries act unilaterally in their own interests. However, only the US gets trashed for it.

Posted by: ushie at January 12, 2004 at 04:10 AM

Hey the U.K and Oz are still on the winning side :)

Posted by: Jon Shep at January 12, 2004 at 05:25 AM

Hey the U.K and Oz are still on the winning side :)

Posted by: Jon Shep at January 12, 2004 at 05:25 AM

Hey the U.K and Oz are still on the winning side :)

Posted by: Jon Shep at January 12, 2004 at 05:25 AM

quite a few did sign up Poland, Italy, Spain, Australia, etc etc its just that the self imporant countries like France, Germany and Russia didn't

Posted by: Mike at January 12, 2004 at 05:26 AM

sorry for that tripple post

Posted by: Jon Shep at January 12, 2004 at 05:26 AM


Time for Germany and France to ratchet up their co-operation, and for a new US-European alliance without them. France is going Muslim anyway, let Germany deal with them when the time comes.

I don't think the US is being pushed into unilateralism when more allies supported us than not, along with many new ones. The real story is Franco-German bilateralism. They're the isolated ones, not us. I'm baffled how this whole "American unilateralism/European opposition" meme has taken hold in contravention of the obvious facts. Well, no, I'm not - the media have been hammering that twisted interpretation until it has become conventional wisdom. Even Krauthammer is falling for it, apparently.

Posted by: Dave S. at January 12, 2004 at 05:56 AM

The surprises are that it has taken America and Britain so long to work out that the French aren't allies, and that the punishment we've meted out (exclusion from contracts they probably wouldn't have won anyway) has been so light.

The French spent most of World War II fighting on the German side, giving the British and Australians some nasty moments in the desert, and refusing to hand over their fleet to Britain. They deserted NATO at the height of the Cold War, weakened the US financially by the French "gold robbery" of Fort Knox in 1967, sabotaged Britain's attempts to join the EEC twice, tried to undermine Canada (Quebec libre), committed an act of TERRORISM on a friendly, English-speaking democracy (New Zealand in 1985), played elaborate and pointless games against American and British influence in Africa, and have sought to steer Germany away from its natural friends in the English-speaking world. I'm not even going to go into their behaviour in Rwanda or the Ivory Coast, or their abject grovelling to the odious Communist regime in China.

Really, with friends like these... In the future, all freedom-loving people in the world must realise that France is on the other side. It is pointless to appeal to their better nature, because the French elite doesn't have one. What we must do is to change the terms of the game, so that the French realise that we won't just take it every time. They should lose and be seen to lose.

Posted by: PJ at January 12, 2004 at 05:58 AM


A few more comments - I like Krauthammer, but he must have hit his head before he wrote these lines:

>The grand alliances are dead

What "grand alliances" is he talking about?

Franco-American? We had the War of Independence. Then nothing until WWI, which wasn't a "grand alliance", just a late entry into the war. WWII wasn't an alliance, it was a liberation. Cold War? France periodically dipped its toe into NATO.

Germano-American? Only under the NATO umbrella. Somewhat less friendly previous to that.

Is he talking about the NATO alliances as a whole? It was formed for defense against the Soviet Union. How long should it last after it's obsolete? And how significant is lack of support from two members, one of whom was always on-again, off-again anyway?

Anglo-American "special relationship"? Goin' strong, including always-stalwart Commonwealth member Australia.

>With a few trusted friends, America must carry on
>alone.

Being with friends negates "alone." Again, the story isn't the opposition of the French (and Germans.) It's the support of the usual reliables (England and Oz) along with the Spanish, Italians, and even more significantly and to varying degrees, the Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs, Baltic nations, etc etc.

I'm saddened that Krauthammer has bought into the myth of French significance.

Posted by: Dave S. at January 12, 2004 at 06:23 AM

Let me get this straight... This means that France will be nuked in my lifetime?

Posted by: Marty at January 12, 2004 at 06:42 AM

The other "alliance" between the US and France that is much forgotten was over Indochina, where the US tried to salvage some progress toward freedom out of the wreckage of the French colonial empire in Vietnam and Laos, leading to 50,000 US and a million or more Indochinese dead and other problems. The US was naive enough to believe that the French knew what they were doing in Indochina, they just weren't doing it with enough troops and money, and it cost America dear. Perhaps the best result of the Iraq liberation is that we will no longer believe that the French know what they are doing about anything.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at January 12, 2004 at 07:17 AM

European countries that went against the US: France, Germany, Russia, and Belgium
The rest were either by the US side (the vast majority) or neutral. Don't know about you guys, but i call that a "grand alliance"

Posted by: madne0 at January 12, 2004 at 07:44 AM

"France is going Muslim anyway, let Germany deal with them when the time comes."

If history is any indication, all they'll need to do is say "Boo!" and their problems will be solved.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 12, 2004 at 08:45 AM

"France is going Muslim anyway, let Germany deal with them when the time comes."

Why not? they've had enough practice now to start getting it right.

It was recently discovered by a group of Australian physicists that much to everyone's suprise there is something that moves faster than light - a frenchman dropping to his knees to surrender.

Posted by: Jake D at January 12, 2004 at 09:25 AM

Who cares about the "old Europe?" The future of the world is not there, and its been wrong about nearly everything for at least the past 150 years. Its pretentious and ridiculous intellectuals and politicians gave us Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, two world wars, anti-Semitism and genocide on an unprecedented scale, along with pointless and brutal colonial wars, and the Cold War. They required rescue by Brits, Americans and Australians from these evils -- and the globe is marked by the graves of young Brits, Americans and Aussies who died saving Old Europe from its stupid self. Unilateralism? As an American, I say if that's defined as having the Brits and Aussies as our allies, I want more of it. The Anglosphere is the future; while the Franco-German equivalent is a dirty, hideous past.

Posted by: Lewis at January 12, 2004 at 09:45 AM

European nations that supported the war: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom.

European nations that opposed the war: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Russia.

That's 18 with the US, 5 against.

unilateral, adj. - "Not including France".

Posted by: Tim Shell at January 12, 2004 at 02:08 PM

Kris Murray at The Edge of England's Sword links to an article in The Prospect about frog corruption.

The 6th republic needs the American Constitution imposed on it. Maybe they'll finally get it right after 200 years.

Posted by: Sandy P. at January 12, 2004 at 03:26 PM

Didn't you mean sorry for that trippple post?

Posted by: kae at January 12, 2004 at 03:36 PM

Everybody on this thread is way too excited about the support from the governments of continental Europe. After all, it was only the governments that expressed support, not the people - polls in Spain, for instance, were 95% against the war. Next time, they may have governments more representative of overwhelming popular feeling.

And the support they did provide, while immensely irritating to the French, didn't exactly put their boys in harm's way (except I think Poland).

Basically, it is as usual up to the English-speaking world to maintain, single-handed, law and freedom amongst men, as Churchill put it.

Posted by: PJ at January 12, 2004 at 06:25 PM

I believe there was broad support for USA from the Polish people - especially after being told to "butt out" by Chiraq.

Trust me, I have a Polish friend, and there's nothing they hate more than French or Germans telling them what to do.

Posted by: Quentin George at January 12, 2004 at 07:56 PM


"I have a Polish friend, and there's nothing they hate more than French or Germans telling them what to do."

Especially when they tell them to sit in the corner in a round room.

Posted by: Dave S. at January 12, 2004 at 09:25 PM

Italy lost troops.

I believe some Bangladeshi soldiers were killed as well.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 13, 2004 at 02:21 AM

Trust me, I have a Polish friend, and there's nothing they hate more than French or Germans telling them what to do.

How about being told by a Russian what to do?
They didn't like it much in Czarist or Soviet times.

Posted by: May Lee at January 13, 2004 at 08:34 AM