French Fries back on the menu? Will France take the position of the US's best friend? 12 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Sorry for the long title, but it sounded kinda cool.

As Blair steps down, and Sarkozy steps up, the position of "America's Best Friend" looks increasingly open.

The relationship between France and the USA goes back to the very start of the US's history (and before that, if you consider it was the French that set the scene for the American Revolution). From Lafayette to the liberation of Paris, and well throughout the Cold War, however things began to go colder during the late 80s and 1990s, as the USA switched from an "anyone but communists" support plan to a "democracy only" support plan, while the French were content to keep selling weapons and products to anyone, so long as they were pro-France. Chirac too, was never very friendly with the US.

The Anglo-American relationship should need no explaining. But now with Brown taking power in the UK, and with his own anti-Bush feelings (as well as a larger distaste for America), and Sarkozy with strong pro-America feelings, the Anglo-American alliance may take second place to the revitalised Franco-American one.

What do you think?




Hellknight1993

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

11th May 2009

0 Uploads

4,137 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Hmmmmm Frech Friesssssss :thumbsup:




Mad Cat

Your mama on a stick.

50 XP

28th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,184 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

French fries is a belgian invention & speciality, thieves.

And i don't know how Mr. Sarkozy will handle, but reports in newspapers have been very confusing, once saying he would like to break communications as much as possible, others saying that he would want to "be friends" again. Judging by his personality it wouldn't surprise me if he would break relations with US and EU more and more. But I have not much of an idea.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Even though Sarkozy seems to have somewhat friendly attitude towards the USA, I don't think there will be a major change or that Great Britain would lose its status as USA's best friend though it would surely weaken. The American people in general are very anti-French and the French people in general are very anti-American, and I don't think Sarkozy will actually make any significant pro-American iniative like getting the French involved in Iraq or strenghtening US-French trade with new bi-lateral free trade agreement. Talks and visits but that's much about it, Sarkozy's main interest is on solving the EU constitutional dilemma and reforming the role of the European Central Bank.

What comes to Bush's attitude, I don't except much from him either as "appeasing" the French would further decrease his support amongst core supporters of the Republican Party and his interest is firmly in Iraq & Far East when it comes to economic questions. Gordon Brown's attitude and the overall feel in Great Britain towards the USA could actually lead into weaker relations with the country as the Iraq war eats Labour's support as well into the direction of the Liberal Democrats.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Sorry - but I wouldn't count France's history with the USA as a "friendship" exactly. True, they helped pay for the war and sent troops to help - but that was mainly a way of getting at the British. In fact, they came very close to attacking us in the Civil War. If Britain joined in to help the Confederacy, France would have almost certainly followed suit.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

Middle East policy has been the most important and controversial international issue in the hard-fought French presidential election campaign. And depending on the results, the vote could mark the first major change in that policy for three decades. Both Nicolas Sarkozy and S gol ne Royal, the candidates of the center-right and the Socialists, respectively, have promised major shifts in France's stance on the Iranian, Lebanese, and Israeli-Palestinian issues if they win. They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years - following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle - has allied the country with Arab dictators such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. By making France the Arabs' favorite Western state, Chirac and other Gaullists have tried to create an alignment to counter the great - and in France, much-despised - primacy of the United States. Many say this strategy has brought little benefit to France, either directly or in terms of making it a credible world power. The strategy suffers from many internal contradictions. For example, French policy seeks to protect Lebanon while refusing to regard Hizbullah as a terrorist organization. And in January, Chirac said an Iran in possession of nuclear bombs would "not be so dangerous," reversing previous official positions. The two largest French newspapers, Le Figaro and Le Monde, have highlighted this debate in reviews of a new book entitled Chirac of Arabia: The Mirages of French Policy, by ric Aeschimann and Christophe Boltanski, two journalists from the leftist newspaper Lib ration. The authors underline French errors, in particular on the Palestinian issue, which Chirac perceived solely through Arafat's eyes. They also document the close personal relations between Chirac, then prime minister, and Hussein in the mid-1970s, when Chirac received substantial funds from Baghdad for his political party in exchange for French support for the Iraqi nuclear program. Chirac said then: "Saddam will be the De Gaulle of the Middle East." The same story goes for Chirac's ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in the 1980s. Ironically, though, when Libya recently wanted to break out of international isolation, it turned not to France, but to the US and Great Britain. For Chirac's would-be successors on the Left and Right, and indeed among large sectors of the French political spectrum, the broad consensus on the country's historic Middle East policy is crumbling. Candidates have been eager to dissociate themselves from Chirac's line on Syria, Iran, Israel and the Palestinians. In the Socialist camp, Royal has adopted a very hard stance on Iran's nuclear weapons program. She declared that Iran ought to be denied control of civilian nuclear power, because it could be a cover for weapons-making. According to her analysis, "The prospect of Iran equipped with nuclear power is not acceptable," since it would give "a government whose president threatens the existence of the State of Israel access to such power." And Royal has dissociated herself from France's pro-Palestinian stance. Expressing concerns about Israel's security, she voiced support for the construction of the security barrier so disparaged by French officials. Sarkozy, the Gaullist candidate, has adopted a strategic stance in total opposition to Chirac's Middle East vision. He prefers close cooperation with the US over an alliance with the Arab world that, to some extent, is aimed against America. On Israel, Sarkozy promises a more balanced policy. Last month, he said French decision-makers must be able "to say a certain number of truths to our Arab friends, for example: that the right of Israel to exist and to live in safety is not negotiable, and that terrorism is their true enemy." He also declared himself ready to defend "the integrity of Lebanon," including the disarmament of Hizbullah. As for centrist candidate Fran ois Bayrou, the third principal contestant, he said that while remaining faithful to a realpolitik, power-oriented conception of international affairs, he also wishes "to establish a French foreign policy that would have as a main theme the right to democracy. No dictatorship is acceptable, even if, in the short-term, it appears to benefit the national interests" of France. It should be noted that there is no question of such statements being designed to appeal to a Jewish vote. Muslim voters vastly outnumber Jewish ones. Rather, there is a genuine conclusion that current policies have not worked and indeed has undercut both French interests and ambitions. This challenge to France's historic pro-Arab policy could lead to a new vision for the Middle East. Under this alternative approach, France could play a major role in the defense of Lebanon's independence, containing the Iranian threat, combating terrorism, building strong relations with Israel, playing a truly central role in peacemaking efforts, and even cooperating with the United States. When it comes to Middle East policy, there is a chance for a real French revolution. St phanie L vy is a research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya. She previously worked for the French Ministry of Defense. +++++++++++++++++++++ Hope it's not to hard to read.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Quetron;3676737Middle East policy has been the most important and controversial international issue in the hard-fought French presidential election campaign. And depending on the results, the vote could mark the first major change in that policy for three decades. Both Nicolas Sarkozy and S gol ne Royal, the candidates of the center-right and the Socialists, respectively, have promised major shifts in France's stance on the Iranian, Lebanese, and Israeli-Palestinian issues if they win. They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years - following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle - has allied the country with Arab dictators such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. By making France the Arabs' favorite Western state, Chirac and other Gaullists have tried to create an alignment to counter the great - and in France, much-despised - primacy of the United States. Many say this strategy has brought little benefit to France, either directly or in terms of making it a credible world power. The strategy suffers from many internal contradictions. For example, French policy seeks to protect Lebanon while refusing to regard Hizbullah as a terrorist organization. And in January, Chirac said an Iran in possession of nuclear bombs would "not be so dangerous," reversing previous official positions. The two largest French newspapers, Le Figaro and Le Monde, have highlighted this debate in reviews of a new book entitled Chirac of Arabia: The Mirages of French Policy, by ric Aeschimann and Christophe Boltanski, two journalists from the leftist newspaper Lib ration. The authors underline French errors, in particular on the Palestinian issue, which Chirac perceived solely through Arafat's eyes. They also document the close personal relations between Chirac, then prime minister, and Hussein in the mid-1970s, when Chirac received substantial funds from Baghdad for his political party in exchange for French support for the Iraqi nuclear program. Chirac said then: "Saddam will be the De Gaulle of the Middle East." The same story goes for Chirac's ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in the 1980s. Ironically, though, when Libya recently wanted to break out of international isolation, it turned not to France, but to the US and Great Britain. For Chirac's would-be successors on the Left and Right, and indeed among large sectors of the French political spectrum, the broad consensus on the country's historic Middle East policy is crumbling. Candidates have been eager to dissociate themselves from Chirac's line on Syria, Iran, Israel and the Palestinians. In the Socialist camp, Royal has adopted a very hard stance on Iran's nuclear weapons program. She declared that Iran ought to be denied control of civilian nuclear power, because it could be a cover for weapons-making. According to her analysis, "The prospect of Iran equipped with nuclear power is not acceptable," since it would give "a government whose president threatens the existence of the State of Israel access to such power." And Royal has dissociated herself from France's pro-Palestinian stance. Expressing concerns about Israel's security, she voiced support for the construction of the security barrier so disparaged by French officials. Sarkozy, the Gaullist candidate, has adopted a strategic stance in total opposition to Chirac's Middle East vision. He prefers close cooperation with the US over an alliance with the Arab world that, to some extent, is aimed against America. On Israel, Sarkozy promises a more balanced policy. Last month, he said French decision-makers must be able "to say a certain number of truths to our Arab friends, for example: that the right of Israel to exist and to live in safety is not negotiable, and that terrorism is their true enemy." He also declared himself ready to defend "the integrity of Lebanon," including the disarmament of Hizbullah. As for centrist candidate Fran ois Bayrou, the third principal contestant, he said that while remaining faithful to a realpolitik, power-oriented conception of international affairs, he also wishes "to establish a French foreign policy that would have as a main theme the right to democracy. No dictatorship is acceptable, even if, in the short-term, it appears to benefit the national interests" of France. It should be noted that there is no question of such statements being designed to appeal to a Jewish vote. Muslim voters vastly outnumber Jewish ones. Rather, there is a genuine conclusion that current policies have not worked and indeed has undercut both French interests and ambitions. This challenge to France's historic pro-Arab policy could lead to a new vision for the Middle East. Under this alternative approach, France could play a major role in the defense of Lebanon's independence, containing the Iranian threat, combating terrorism, building strong relations with Israel, playing a truly central role in peacemaking efforts, and even cooperating with the United States. When it comes to Middle East policy, there is a chance for a real French revolution. St phanie L vy is a research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya. She previously worked for the French Ministry of Defense. +++++++++++++++++++++ Hope it's not to hard to read.

Can't you try to use paragraphs?

The Queen's recent visit to the US shows to me that the two countries will continue to stay in pretty close cooperation. I doubt whether Britain will be knocked off the top of America's list of buddies, but France might become closer.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Retherferd

|

50 XP

12th February 2007

0 Uploads

2,924 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Rich19;3676746Can't you try to use paragraphs?

He kinda did but did not space them out.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

While France's government might take a more US-friendly stance, I very much doubt the populace will. Either way, this shift, supposing it happens (I doubt) would be interesting to witness.




  • 1
  • 2