FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

A recurrent question " Why are the French anti-American ? "...

This is a serious question and we can only give a few comments to suggest that, maybe, it is not a GOOD question :

* When you do not speak a language, you may misunderstand what people say (and their body language) and if you are a little paranoid, you may conclude that people are rude to you when it was not to you and maybe they were not rude at all...
* When you are a big and successful country, you tend to think that people in the other countries should think and live just like you ; maybe they do not want to and when they express it, it is not necessarily " anti-Americanism "
* More than many other people, Americans want to be loved : why would gnats love elephants ?
* Even when allied on key-matters, countries in Europe, including France, do not always share the same geopolitical interests : business is business (Airbus vs Boeing) and this is not "anti-Americanism ": this may happen when gnats become bigger than elephants would wish....
* Sometimes the American press focuses on the French only : in early 2002, Europeans were upset by US foreign policy and expressed their view the same way and with the same word ("unilateralism") : the US press bashed French Foreign Affairs Minister Hubert Védrine and hardly mentioned British European Commissioner Chris Padden and German Minister Joshka Fischer who had said the same things with the same words.

http://www.understandfrance.org/France/Intercultural2.html#ancre1011402

Anti-French America...

# France and the French, as seen by the U.S. press : zero, except for clichés (fashion, food, strikes) or sensational happenings. Conversely, whether you read about the USA as a superpower, an economic giant, or a place where everyone's running amok with guns, you READ about the U.S.A. every single day ! Among the most familiar themes in the US press :

* A recurrent theme : the past glory of France and the shameful Vichy regime
* France is not important to the US and its image is only food and fashion, its technology does not count
* The French do not accept their diminishing influence
* The French are not as pro-American as the British
* Why don't they just do like us ?


# The New York Times gives an excellent example of a systematically anti-French editorial policy :

* Misleading/prejudiced headlines : "France and the United States are at War" (Sept.19, 2003), "The French, Now Sniffing at Themselves" (Nov.28, 1998 on hygiene), "Easygoing, Not French and Formal (Feb.3, 1999 on American restaurants), "Anxious French Mutter as Envoy Tries to Sell Globalism" (Dec.2,1999), etc...
* Wrong facts : in March 2003, the NYT (and the IHT) published two editorials by William Safire, "The French Connection", in which it was said that France, China and Syria have one common reason not to want the US and British troops in Iraq : they would make clear to the world that these three nations have supplied Saddam Hussein with illicit products for his missiles, etc... ; Barry Lando, a former CBS journalist, checked the facts and established there were wrong ; the NYT refused to publish his article, arguing that they never publish articles which criticize their editorials and that editorials contain opinions and not facts ; therefore, you will not read anything about all that in the US press and to learn more, you have to read "Le Monde" (March 26, 2003) ;
* Biased presentation : when the World Health Organization ranked France's health system 1rst and the USA's 39th out of 191 countries , the NYT headline (June 21, 2000) was "Europeans Perform Highest in Ranking of World Health", it mentioned France as ranking "in the top five" and indicated the American ranking only in the tenth paragraph... (this is quoted by Edward C.Knox, in a well-documented article : The New York Times Looks at France, The French Review, N°6, Vol.75, May 2002)
* Editorial policy : the recent campaign about "anti-semitism in France" in Spring 2002 did not correspond to real facts in France at this time but it caused a lot of damage in the US public opinion. http://www.understandfrance.org/Paris/Documents.html#ancre2360410
* Choice of words : "Where a friend would be described as "steadfast", for example, France is "adamant". Her spokesmen "snipe" at our position, where a friend would merely "criticize", writes John L.Hess, former correspondent of The New York Times in Paris, in his book, written in 1968 and which could have been writtent in 2003 !
* Contemptuous : about the evidence of Iraqi threat (as demonstrated by Colin Powell) "...so convincing that only an imbecile, or maybe a Frenchman, could conclude differently... " (NYT Feb.5, 2003). He was refering to masive destruction weapons (which are still to be found).

# The International Herald Tribune can be very patronizing as well such as in "Having persuaded themselves that cinema should be about art, not money, France's educated elites have never disguised their disdain for much of what reaches French movie and television screens from the United States...." (I.H.T., Sept.13, 2002)

# Racist ? : Knox (see above) says : "No other national or ethnic group appears to get the same continually negative treatment in print media reserved for France and the French, with the possible exception of Arabs or Palestinians, and even there, the treatment is not so much cultural as political, linked to a specific context or event." He also says "If one were to substitute, for example, "Mexican" or "Japanese" or "Indian" for "French", what would reader reaction be ?". Try to do it the next time you read an article about the French in the NYT!

more : http://www.understandfrance.org/France/Intercultural.html#ancre151569

Niung,

Very interesting post. However I do believe there is a unique element in the French aspect of anti Americanism. Jean-Francoise Revel outlined it clearly in his book.

Much of what you wrote above could accurately be said of the views of several other European countrties toward us. To that extent these are near universal phenomena. However the case of France is different. France expended more lives and treasure in a post WWII attempt to recapture its former empire than it did in fighting Hitler. That alone tells us much. De Gaulle kicked NATO out of France during the darkest days of the Cold War, saying that twice in the twentieth century the United States was tardy in coming to France's rescue. (An absurd connection in that NATO was designed expressly to create instantaneous mutual defense structures.) France has expended great effort to undermine U.S. international policy objectives for many years. This all goes well beyond mere disagreement. While the psychological factors you listed may well be operating in this case, no other nation seems so continuously in their grip.

France is no friend of the United States, and has not been one for at least 40 years.

Well, in your post you speak about french government. I was mostly refering to french people in my post. There is a big difference between government and people (not only in France). I don't like Chirac neither. And he doesn't get a lot a support from people (unemployment, 35 hours, GDP growth, etc). (You know French like blaming their own governement for everything (even for weather :wink: ). In France, he is not considered as the best french president at all.
I think De Gaule is apart. It's his personality. Chirac is sometimes close to De Gaule. But other presidents weren't like them (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing or François Mitterrand for example).
I think you see only the bad parts of the things. For example if France weren't an USA's friend, it would not have helped in Irak in 1991 or in Afghanistan just after 9/11. France recently saved American citizen in Côte D'ivoir. Moreover, I remember Chirac was the first foreign president to go to NY after 9/11. There are bad and good things and you seem (and US newspapers too) to only see the bad things.
France is the only big european country which have never had a war against the USA.

January 06, 2004, 9:06 a.m.
Seeing Is Believing
France2 gets creative with Saddam's capture.

By Nidra Poller I'm afraid that if you didn't see the December 18, 2003, episode of Envoyé Spécial on France2, you won't believe what follows. I saw it, and I'm not sure I believe it myself. The program was touted during prime-time news as the full story of the arrest of Saddam Hussein. Aha!, I thought. Let's see how they are going to tell it, or spin it, or doctor it.

Our friends, The French. With friends like the French, who needs enemies?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/poller200401060906.asp

au

You created this thread, as far as I remember, so you can certainly go on with your hateful remarks about the French.

Obviously, Nina Poller missed something, when looking France 2.
This episode of Envoyé Spécial (there are always four different episodes in a program) wasn't done by the French television but by a journalist of the "Agence Capa" ["Capa is France's leading producer of television news magazines and is widely recognized as the leading press agency in Europe." Herald Tribune]. He was invited by and going with the 4th division.
This video was broadcasted by all major European tv-stations (I gave a link to the video on another thread weeks ago - it's archived now and can be seen only by paying).

Nina Poller obviously missed the intro of this film, where they explained, when/how it was planned and how it took to flilm and produce it. (CAPA is known for this - and that's why they got their awarsd - like the EMMY.)

BTW: the program - in France - was and is broadcasted always at the same time - they don't alter their time of the main news just because Americans think, it should be broadcasted at another time!

This thread has evidently been getting on perfectly well without me, I see.
Hello to all friends, old and new.

McTag

Hi, McTag


:wink:

Walter
I did not create this thread. Nor did I write the piece.

I couldn't find the above in the quoted article and though, you made it.

And since I didn't get the idea first, how a French tv-documentary about Saddam, could be connected to the European Union ...

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Walter
I did write the comment you noted. Regarding that statement my feelings about the French are far from unique.

Yes, I know that's democracy: the more say the same, the more right and correct that is.

France's foreign policy has always surprised me, it still does. As an American citizen I am somewhat biased but feel this policy has, at least since Hitler's first tentative foray into the Rhineland in 1936, been a kind of head in the sand attempt at hubris by the French. This attempt to dredge up past French glory in an attempt to deflect present and past inadequacies is mysterious but very often this magic show involving smoke and mirrors seems to work for them. The classic case was De Gaule's Demand to enter Paris as the "Conquering Hero", after the Americans kicked out the occupying forces, with a representative cordon of French "troops" and the subsequent allied submission to said demand. Everyone knows the history of French success against the Germans at this time so it can be said that Charles truly had a lot of "gall" issuing this demand. Oh the temerity! But he did get what he demanded.

But it is France's seeming choice to become the "Non-America" in the Post Old War era that is interesting. It is almost like the "Bad Twin" syndrome where one brother or sister chooses a different and opposite path to its counterpart therefore finding it easier to garner recognition from the "parents" or "peers" involved. France seems desperate for world attention and legitimacy as a world power. Historians have noticed this before in France's Balance of Power bid to counter perceived English hegemony back in the mid to late 1770's. Americans are ever grateful for French help during our fight for freedom but it was only General Washington's garnering a specific victory that convinced the French they would be helping a sure victor. So the French have always seemed to be looking out for themselves in what they perceive a zero-sum-game.

But in this they seem no different than any other nation. However, France's use of realpolitik and balance of power mechanisms regarding those nations at the UN, in respect to the Iraq situation, seemed, at best, counter productive if not downright irresponsible.

JM

Blair: I'll take Britain into euro by 2007
Complete article

Walter, I'm not sure what the advantage would be for England to convert to the Euro. Their currency has been pretty stable for the past decade unlike the Euro, and I think fluctuations in currency creates more problems than it solves - IMHO. At this point, I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Maybe, somebody can explain why I might be wrong.

Well, c.i. any European country has had or still has this discussion.

But may I remind you that all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands etc don't have own currencies (any more)?

Seriously:
the new currency has been years in the making:
- the Treaty of Rome (1957) declared a common European market as a European objective with the aim of increasing economic prosperity and contributing to "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
- the Single European Act (1986) and the Treaty on European Union (1992) have built on this, introducing Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and laying the foundations for our single currency.
- the third stage of EMU began on 1 January 1999, when the exchange rates of the participating currencies were irrevocably set. Euro area Member States began implementing a common monetary policy, the euro was introduced as a legal currency and the 11 currencies of the participating Member States became subdivisions of the euro. Greece joined on 1 January 2001 and so 12 Member States introduced the new euro banknotes and coins at the beginning of 2002.

As I said already before: all business in EU-Europe is done since years and years (since 1967, if I remember correctly) in one single currency already.

They're gonna have to work this sort of thing out a lot better before they get much further. Whatever comes of this will be interesting. Censure and fines levied against France and Germany no doubt will bring about strong protest from the two, while allowing the exception to stand is sure to bring about complaints from member states which have taken difficult and uncomfortable steps to bring themselves into, or to remain, in compliance. The wrangling over the constitution may become moot if an internal currency battle heats up. I don't think this is an issue which will just "go away" on its own, and either way it falls, it sets up more dissention within the EU.

Well, there's still the EU-court. And most commentors said weeks ago that this will go to the court.

source: DW-WORLD.de

Sorta like GWBush legalizing illegals in the US to win the Hispanic vote. How effective it will be is yet to be seen.

I saw that, too, that's really quite spectacular news!

People mostly seemed to think the prospects for Britain joining the Euro any time soon, much speculated on when Blair was re-eelected, were dead & buried ... why, just yesterday a columnist was ridiculing Bill Safire for having predicted that Blair would "come a-cropper over a euro referendum", noting that "the idea is all but dead" ... heh.

As for the European Commission taking the European Council to European court .... hehhheh ... I'm sure that's a first <grins>. Stupid really - those stringent 3% caps are considered by many to not have made sense in the first place - but now the exception being made on them to the big countries makes it at least politically a relevant question ... ah, the mess one sometimes gets oneself in. But I'm sure it'll get papered over again, in the end ...

Still, it's a brave move by the Commission I think. And a good thing, too - I'm on the Commission's side here, not cause I agree with the stability pact (which I dont), but because the move seems to signal an ambition to ever so gradulally insist more and more on consistent European governance to take the place of the wily horsetrading of national ministers in the Council.

But - talking brave - Blair surely wins the prize for braveness this time! That court case will long be forgotten when the UK comes to join the euro. In fact, Blair seems to be making it a question of character to face down his population (like he's done so often with his party) to lead it on hugely unpopular missions because he believes them to be right ...