And How Do French Intellectuals Think? Deeply or Clearly?

Today is the birthday of Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), the electrical engineer and inventor who said that

The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.

It is Easy to March into the Streets, Burn Flags, and Throw Rocks in Protest When Your Country is Protected by the Strongest Military in the World

It is easy to march into the streets, burn flags, and throw rocks in protest when your country is protected by the strongest military in the world

writes a South Korean from Seoul.

While one Korean responds from Texas to the rage of a South Korean pacifist regarding Seoul's decision to back the American military in Iraq, another pens a long and thoughtful letter in the International Herald Tribune.

Although the main purpose of this weblog is anti-Americanism in France, it is my contention that anti-Americanism amounts to the same self-serving prattle, no matter what region of the globe it occurs in. Read E S Moon's letter and decide for yourself.

Ha-yun Jung's commentary Fighting America's wars (Views, July 1) underscores a pervasive anti-American sentiment that has gripped South Korea in recent years. While similar sentiments are seemingly sweeping the globe, it is curious that Korea, of all places, would be home to such fierce anti-Americanism.

America has been South Korea's strongest ally for the last half-century. When the author conveniently refers to the Vietnam War, she fails to mention the most relevant past conflict in the U.S.-Korea relationship: the Korean War. Any historical assessment of the U.S.-Korean relationship begins there — lest we forget the 44,000 American lives lost in the defense of the country. Moreover, when Ha-yun speaks of the freedoms and the economic prosperity that South Korea enjoys, she also fails to mention that much of these successes were predicated upon a strong and unwavering U.S. military presence.

Arguably, no other country has enjoyed more benefits from an alliance with America, and more importantly, as North Korea continues its relentless pursuit of more nuclear weapons, perhaps no other country faces more dire consequences from a reduced U.S. commitment than South Korea.

As Ha-yun correctly points out, the U.S.-Korea relationship is an unbalanced one. However, contrary to what she and many other Koreans argue, this imbalance is decidedly in Korea's favor, not America's. The fact is Korea has become a free rider. It is easy to march into the streets, burn flags and throw rocks in protest when your country is protected by the strongest military in the world.

The author ends her article by stating that “for once” Koreans should act upon their own “national interests.” One could not have stated a clearer policy objective from the American perspective. An assumption of unwavering American commitment to Korea has always been implicit in domestic discussions of Korean “national interests.” However, times are changing.

The United States needs reliable allies now more than ever — and, in particular, allies who reciprocate the kind of unwavering commitment that America has shown them. More to the point, the United States has never been more serious about acting firmly to secure its own “national interests” above all else. South Koreans should beware of what they wish for — they just might get it.

George Bush's Birthday is July 11(He Will Be 1 Year Old)

This nation is peaceful, but
fierce when stirred to anger

George W Bush

Five days from now, George Bush will be celebrating his birthday. Some will protest and say, that's not true, the president's birthday is today, July 6. But we're not talking about the same person, apparently. And the George Bush I have in mind will hardly be doing much bona fide celebrating, actually, in view of the fact that next Sunday he turns 1 year old.

The George Bush I have in mind is not the one whose full name is George Walker Bush, nor the one whose full name is George Herbert Walker Bush, but the one whose full name is George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein (no relation to Saddam). And this George Bush was born in Baghdad on July 11, 2003.

As far as can be ascertained, George Bush’s parents named him in honor of some Western leader one of whose recent feats they found to be not only impressive and admirable, obviously, but worthy enough to name their new-born son after. They must have been plenty impressed, in view of the fact that they gave their child the name of someone not of their faith, with linguistic roots not of their culture. (Sort of like a Westerner — say, someone from the Bush clan — giving a newborn son a name such as Mohammed Ahmed Yusuf Bush.)

Now, here is what I suggest. I suggest that the West should send a number of representatives to Baghdad. The type of people that David Brooks calls “the members of the sneering brigade”, “the think-tank johnnies and the rest of the commentariate” in “their usual sky-is-falling mode” — people like José Bové, François Hollande, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, José Luis Zapatero, Jean-Marie Colombani, Plantu, Willem (to name only the Europeans), etc… They should choose a couple of high-visibility VIPs, “arm” them with all the usual arguments, and send them to Baghdad.

And there, they should seek out the parents of George Bush. Once the couple has been found, they should patiently explain the “truth” to them and seek thereby to install some common sense in them. That would include telling them…
• that the war was unnecessary and a sham, conducted for bogus reasons;
• that Iraq, and the world, were far better off before the conflict;
• that the presence of foreign soldiers is “humiliating” for George Bush and his fellow countrymen;
• that they must resent America (or at least, the Bush administration) for the current situation in which thousands have been killed over a period of more than a year (almost as many months as George Bush has been alive) and hark back to the previous situation in which the secret police killed several thousands per month with total impunity;
• that, in contrast to the administration of George Bush’s namesake, they, the holier-than-thou members of the peace camp, had (and have) nothing but the best interests of his parents in mind;
• oh, and, of course, that George Bush’s namesake is nothing but a nincompoop and a despicable liar.

Once the parents of George Bush have been converted to the sky-is-falling truth, the “the members of the sneering brigade” could go to work convincing more of Iraq’s population.
The members of “the commentariate” could start with Mohammed, Ali, and Omar, the brothers from Iraq the Model and expand outwards, to include the Iraqis who lost hands and tongues to Saddam’s thugs, had their faced scarred by acid, had their sisters, mothers, and daughters raped, and had their parents, brothers, and children shot down and their bodies thrown into unnamed graves. With luck, “the think-tank johnnies” would eventually reach that vast majority of people who in polls believe life has never been better since the war toppled Saddam and who say they feel more optimistic than they ever had in the past.

Let us join together and wish them “good luck and godspeed with your sacred mission”.

Oh, and by the way, Georgie: Happy birthday!

Zeropean menace

La menace zéropéenne

Zeropa bends over for Iran. The overt obstructionist policies of France, the collaborationist pacifism of Continental Europe (which started with Spain), and the sclerosis of Zeropean non-institutions all mean that the United States has to avoid Europe like the plague. Message to Americans: not only are you all hated here, but if nothing is done soon this continent will be the death of you, literally.

La Zéropa se met à quatre pattes pour l'Iran. La politique d'obstructian systématique de la Fwance, le pacifisme collaborateur des autres pays sur le Vieux Continent (qui a débuté avec les espingouins), et le blocage des non-institutions zéropéennes font que les Etats-unis doivent se méfier de l'Europe comme de la peste. Message aux américains: non seulement vous êtes tous détestés ici, mais si rien n'est fait bientôt, ce continent sera à l'origine de votre mort collectif.

The French are playa-haters	Les franchouilles détestent ceux qui en ont
Bush's recent NATO meeting. A win for George Bush. Chiraq's proposition is poppycock.	La récente réunion à l'OTAN avec George Bush. George Bush gagne la partie. La proposition de Chirak n'est qu'un ensemble de balivernes.

Dud firecracker	Pétard mouillé
France threatens little brown people. Little brown people laugh back. French Defence Surrender Minister is brandishing some kind of pre-emptive nuclear threat. Sounds like exactly the same thing that the French hate Americans so much for.	France menace les petits basanés de ce monde. Les petits basanés de ce monde lui rient au nez. Ministresse Fwançaise de la Défense Capitulation agite une espèce de menace nucléaire préventive. Les franchouilles détestent les américains pour ce genre de comportement.

The late Marlon Brando	Feu Marlon Brando
Le Monde Al Jazeera on the Seine explains how France's Internal Intelligence services have just realized that French suburbs are powder keg shitholes ready-to-blow. Tarik Ramadan to Chiraq: 'the butter halal chop meat is in the refrigerator'.	Le Monde Al Jazira sur Seine nous explique que les RG viennent de se rendre compte que les banlieues franchouilles sont des trous à merde prêts à exploser. Tarik Ramadan à Chirak: 'Passe-moi le beurre la viande halal'.

Some Thoughts on American Patriotism…

In France and around the world, July Fourth is a day like any other, i.e., one to complain, worry, moan, wail, and lament, not least over Uncle Sam’s misdeeds as well as the distressing state of patriotism among Americans. A good example of this was visible in a film review over two years ago. When Black Hawk Down opened in France, Le Monde's Samuel Blumenfeld let off a broadside, and, for good measure, fired a couple of shots at Behind Enemy Lines as well. Why? because the movies were badly filmed? No. Because the actors did a lousy job? No. Because the filmmakers took liberties with the truth? Hardly, since both were based on actual events (one showed a battle on the background of the Somalia famine and the other described the Serbs' mass graves in the former Yugoslavia).

No, the films were lambasted because they presented a “questionable ideology” and had “propaganda designs”. Of what type? You better sit down and hold on to your seat when you hear this: to give “a valorous image of the patriotism and the endurance of American soldiers”. Ohlala! Isn’t that shocking?!

The film reviewer went on to bemoan the fact that warlord Aideed's soldiers are shown as “sadistic, cheating, vicious […] the alter egos of the savage Germanic tribes […] in Gladiator, by the same Ridley Scott.” A director whom the critic castigates for leaving something out. Oh, what is that, pray tell? For not showing… “the ordinary racism of certain American soldiers or questioning the African policies of President Clinton”.

(Visibly, Blumenfeld has not been informed that part of the reason for the movie's existence was to criticize the Clinton administration’s policies in the 90s and that a notice explaining this at the end of the film was removed only because of the shock of September 11. Incidentally, it has never seemed to inconvenience the film critic much that films criticizing Paris's African policies, or Jacques Chirac in the manner of Fahrenheit 9/11, do not exactly abound in France. As to the hypothesis (which I happen to share, I don’t know why) that the two Hollywood movies present “a valorous image of the patriotism and the endurance of American soldiers” simply because… that happens to be the truth, let’s not get into that, shall we, I don’t think Blumenfeld would understand…)

In other words, American patriotism, in today's world, is so ridiculous, and so insidious, that even among the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II and even among the mass killings of a famished population, it is that treacherous danger which the world must fear and fight and denounce by any means available. The danger is so terrible that it eclipses the war crimes of Somali warlords and of Yugoslav butchers. Yes, you heard that right: That the militias in fact did machine gun the Somali crowds, what importance compared to the fact that a G.I. or two may have uttered racist words! At least the people shot dead by their own people did not suffer from any type of racism. What a relief!

Who cares about the Bosnia mass graves! Who cares about the Mogadishu massacres! Compared with the simple fact that Hollywood distributes films that might be called patriotic, and the terrible danger their content (along with that of McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, etc) represents, those atrocities evaporate into nothingness.

To leave the film world behind for the international stage per se, Le Monde once asked if one shouldn't "fear the implementation of a Pax Americana" in Yugoslavia. I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming when I read that! The reason I find this accusation extremely offensive is that, for four years, Yugoslavia was beset by war, with murders, killings, and rape, with hideous crimes, mass graves, and genocide. Finally, the international community put an end to it. But because the Americans were the ones who were paramount in this undertaking, the French abstain from calling the end of the tragedy a positive event. The Serbs are the worst criminals to stage a war in Europe since 1945, and for now, at least, their killing is over. But what danger do some Europeans fret about? That peace came under the orders of Uncle Sam…

Yankee Doodle Dandy

Ironic comments, tch-tching, scorn, and horselaughter are inevitably the reactions when discussing American patriotism in many parts of the world. After all, they claim, isn't Washington the source of the main troubles of the world for the past 60 years? If that is correct, then it can be only true that U.S. patriotism is little more than a dangerous trap or some kind of disease or superstition, from people who believe — how ridiculous they are! — in something not unrelated to witches and fairy tales.

As everyone here in Europe knows: any society which does not offer the type of guarantees, equality, and social protection that the European models do is not worth living in, or believing in, and any government that does not try to implement same is not worth keeping in power. And anybody, in turn, who might believe differently can only be under the spell of a smoke screen, which deserves only to be deplored, scorned, and mocked. So, America, with its “itch to fight” and its “excess of testosterone” which has “inflamed the country” (the French verb, enfiévrer [to make feverish], suggests a disease) can only be of an object of ridicule and scorn, as well as a danger without precedent.

Following 911, I expected French friends and acquaintances of mine who came back from visits to the U.S. to return with some sense of respect or admiration. Don’t kid yourselves! Many shared the same tone of exasperation and disbelief in their voices: How can one be so patriotic (that is, so superstitious)?

It was a rhetorical question, and some were surprised that I answered it. My answer was that I didn't know what they are talking about. What happens when one goes to the United States? One sees a lot of flags and… That's about it. Ain't that right? One does not see hysterical demonstrations walking down the avenues. One does not see signs reading “Down with the Taliban” or “Death to Iraq”. One does not hear the “cowboys” shout “Vive la guerre!” I have not seen many Americans set fire to Iraqi or Afghan (or Vietnamese) flags. I don't remember seeing any throw tomatoes or molotov cocktails on the Soviet or Chinese embassies.

When one points out that George W Bush has made a speech in an American mosque, or that he observed Ramadan, or that he spoke of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, the reaction is only horse laughter or scorn, because of course — of course! — it can only be a sham. (As it happens, it is not in America that mosques [or synagogues] are burnt down at alarming rates.)

In January 2002, the Council of American-Islamic Relations put the responsibility of eight murders on reactions to the events of September 11. The authorities could only confirm one of those, at the most two, as motivated by anti-Arab hatred. In any case, one is far from that fear (expressed in America as well as elsewhere) that Americans, as a people, would lump Muslims in general together with the terrorists (faire l’amalgame) and unleash a wave of terror against the Muslim population of their country. (Once more, the Europeans hold that without their precious advice, unthinking Americans could only act irresponsibly — how modest of them.)

We have seen many a time on this weblog that by simply doing a little digging, it appears that so-called humanistic activists (whether in the shape of intellectuals, groups, national leaders, or countries) are not as neutral, idealistic, and lucid as they seem to believe themselves, but present many an inconsistency, often more than the Americans they criticize. Thus it is with patriotism as well. In contrast to the irony expressed when dealing with American patriotism (and that of other Western countries), they seem often to lose all their marbles when confronted with the national pride of developing countries. They can only marvel when third-world countries (or, rather, their unelected leaders) evoke "national aspirations" and the construction and the future of their nations.

In the aftermath of 911, then, Americans unfurled the Stars and Stripes, voiced their support for the acting president, and pulled up their sleeves to go to work. Insofar as this character trait is supposed to provoke ridicule, I find it rather solemn and low key. And there is nothing new about this. In fact, the journalist Arthur Higbee, a Pacific War veteran, wrote in the International Herald Tribune that after Pearl Harbour, America's attitude was even more low key. “Very few people hung out flags, and nobody wore a flag lapelpin. No flag-waving was needed. The tone of the nation was one of grim determination. Recruiting offices were overflowing.”

“Grim determination” : there is a better description of patriotic America, today and in the past, than Dana Burde’s pacifist caricature which was praised by Le Monde (“the loud cries demanding war and vengeance, combined with media censorship, have almost drowned out the few voices of the left” [the only voices filled with reason and understanding, of course, you realize]) — a caricature which has been eagerly repeated day in and day out in the French media, in the European media, and in the Arab media for years.

But it is not only in wartime that American patriotism is low-key. While many countries favor solemn military parades on their national holidays, or at least a predominant role of the military, the Fourth of July is, above all things, a party. Oh, of course there is the flag ceremony, with a handful of military people present from each service — army, navy, air force, marines — but it’s above all a party, with barbecuing (hotdogs, burgers, spare ribs, etc), games, and fireworks.

And if the military — and veterans — have a special place at the festivities, whether on July Fourth or other holidays, they are only a piece of the puzzle which also includes bands, pompon girls, floats, ethnic pride groups, cowboys, Indians, and clowns — I’ve seen a parade where the marching soldiers were preceded, followed, and surrounded by dozens of clowns. (Try that on the Champs-Élysées, in Red Square, on at Tien An Men!)

As I write this — 4 juillet oblige — I am listening to the Jingle Cats sing The Star-Spangled Banner and Yankee Doodle Dandy. For some reason, I have trouble imagining a lucid Frenchman, a down-to-earth Russian, or a wise Chinese person setting their national anthems to cats’ meows. Non, their wailing takes other, less enjoyable, directions.

Wailing Europeans and other Uncle Sam detractors ought to make sure they keep their droning continuous and never-ending. Because, if instead of endlessly lamenting the distressing state of Americans’ patriotism, they were to shut up and try and study it a little more closely and a little more rationally, they might come to believe that Yankee patriotism is not so mystical, or frightening, or perilous, as is commonly believed. Then they would have less to wail about. Can you imagine that!? Wouldn't that be awful?!

As for me, for some reason, I prefer the laughter and the joy of the American spirit.

Happy Fourth of July, everybody!

(Lady Liberty Fireworks: Thanks to Bob Gurfield)

Lire la version francaise

How dare he!?

I lost a friend once because we disagreed about Gerhard Richter's paintings. I saw the 40 years of painting exhibit at MOMA and I thought it was a snooze fest. Apparently, it was simply not allowed to find the Great Richter's work dull, contrived, hollow, etc. I suffered the consequences — she and I haven't spoken for years.

I felt a mix of revulsion and vindication to-day when reading an interview with Richter that was reprinted in the Times. Richter's latest series of works ("War Cut") are about the Iraq war and — like his Baader-Meinhof tribute to post-war Germany's gang of miniature Hitlers, with paintings based on projected Photographs — his latest works involve a collage or, if I understand correctly, some kind of reproduction of newspaper articles on the canvas. Richter chose articles from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dated March 20-21, the first two days of the Iraq war, which is supposed to be the subject of "War Cut" (neat title, no?) though you'd be forgiven for not understanding this from the images themselves. Richter says he chose this date because it's like another momentous date in modern history. Can you guess which one?

THORN-PRIKKER Why did you use The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung?

RICHTER Because I have been reading it for 40 years.

THORN-PRIKKER Why March 20 and 21, 2003?

RICHTER The outbreak of war is the date that people remember. Just like the start of Hitler's war on Sept. 1, 1939. On the other hand, it seems to me that March 20-21 didn't have an impact comparable to, say, Sept. 11, 2001.

I was disgusted by Richter's comparison but felt vindicated in having seen his work for what it is.

Oh, and Happy 4th of July everybody.

Lance, Aliyah and France

From to-morrow's Times:

ERUSALEM, July 1 — More French Jews have been immigrating to Israel or buying properties here as potential havens, and the Israelis and the French are debating whether the trend is the result of a surge in anti-Semitic attacks in France or just a cyclical oddity.

The Jewish Agency, the quasi-governmental body responsible for settling immigrants, reported a doubling in the number of French Jews who arrived last year and in 2002, to more than 2,000 each year, compared with about 1,000 a year in the previous three years. By contrast, worldwide immigration to Israel has sharply declined during the Arab-Israeli violence.

Michael Jankelowitz, a spokesman for the Jewish Agency, said that as a result of attacks against Jews in France in the past three years, many Jews, particularly those whose religion is evident from their clothes, were feeling increasingly uneasy. Much of the tension has centered in working-class suburbs of Paris where Jews and Muslims mingle.

"If they're made to feel uncomfortable, this is the place they've always dreamed of coming to," he said.

The AP also has questions:

Liege, Belgium–(AP) — It's a valid question: Did Tour de France organizers design a course specifically to thwart Lance Armstrong's drive for a record sixth win?

The course favors some of Armstrong's strongest rivals and blunts some of his own particular strengths. But Armstrong says he believes organizers are just aiming for spectacle.

The EU as a Counterpart, Not a Counterweight, to the U.S.

In answer to Dominique Dhombres' wish for Europe to start existing by taking on America as an enemy, another French Dominique, last name Moïsi, had this to say, several years ago (during the Clinton administration, in fact): "France's dream of challenging the United States is the rest of Europe's nightmare".

One of those Europeans was interviewed about Europe's relationship with the United States by John Vinocur for the International Herald Tribune:

"My position is there are two ways of building Europe", José Manuel Durão Barroso said in a conference room in Brussels last December.

Barroso, then the Portuguese prime minister and now the nominated president of the European Commission, came to the point with almost bracing abruptness.

You could construct Europe, he said, either as a "counterpart or a counterweight" to the United States.

"It's stupid to see it as a counterweight. In some European countries, there's the idea we'll be independent if we're a counterweight. This is silly. It's counterpart, not contrepouvoir," Barroso insisted, reaching from his fluent English for the French word for a balancing force.

… he recoiled from the kind of vocabulary and approach that characterize the relations of some of Portugal's European partners to America and were at the heart of the profound dispute among the Allies surrounding the war in Iraq.

"Emancipation?" Barroso asked, pronouncing the word with the seeming disdain of a leader of a country he defined as Euro-Atlantic in sentiment and geography.

"And to talk of the United States on a confrontational basis?", he continued, in his carom-shot style. It is this straight-ahead manner that could well make Barroso an able EU president. If he is consensual as well as determined, he might also emerge as the strongest holder of the post since Jacques Delors. To do this, Barroso would have to gather and harness behind him the potential new strength of smaller countries in the EU's new membership of 25, while artfully managing what is now frequently described in both France and Germany as their diminishing influence within the institution.

When Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, the candidate sponsored by the French and Germans for the commission presidency, was rejected late last month at another Brussels summit meeting — Verhofstadt talked of Europe's "emancipation" from the Americans, and later suggested friends of the Yanks had done him in — Barroso seemed unexpectedly attractive and available. One explanation for why the Germans and French went along with his choice came in a report that Barroso had agreed to appoint a German to a new post as a super European commissioner for economics, and a Frenchman to either of the important jobs of competition or internal markets commissioner. Barroso's response to this speculation was, ''The selection of commissioners is the president's job, and I'm not about to give up my responsibilities." A second explanation for the selection of the host of the Azores meeting, which grouped the United States, Britain, Spain and Portugal just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, was provided by Antonio Vilar, a Lisbon political scientist quoted by Le Figaro. He told the French newspaper that Barroso"was pardoned for this because he is not a convinced Atlanticist in the manner of an Aznar," a reference to José Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister.

For Le Figaro, Barroso's acceptability to France and Germany hinged on what it described as his "ambiguous presence" in the Azores.

Barroso's views seemed hardly ambiguous in Brussels in December 2003. He criticized the Bush administration for making remarks that in no way helped the United States' friends. And as a European who actually knew the United States from teaching there, described American diplomacy as weak in presentation.

With this view, he said he spoke more often during the run-up to the war with President Bush than "other leaders of Europe."

Barroso explained that, excepting France, whose leadership is nominally right-of-center, he believed much of the opposition to the war in Europe had "an ideological basis" in the left.

"If it were Clinton or the liberals in power" in the United States, he said, "we wouldn't have had the same criticism.

"There was an ideological construction in this crisis," he said. "Unfortunately, ideology came before strategic thinking, long-term considerations."

Bush, he said, told him that his particular anger with some European leaders involved their attempts at blocking the situation in the run-up to the war. Barroso recalled he replied that the allies had to have their own opinions.

"But," Barroso went on, "you cannot block or instigate. During this crisis, there was not only a difference of opinion, but a cleavage with some people trying to mobilize opinion."

Just as he saw a strong Europe in America's interest, Barroso said, so it was to the United States' advantage to seek multilateral solutions.

"We think it's very important to give high value to the relationship between Europe and the United States. We share the same values — there are differences of sensitivity and style, but the values are the same. Besides, it's in the world's interest. Global terrorism, development, environment. All these challenges can't be approached without the U.S. and Europe working together."

Better European-American relations could come from education and discussion, Barroso said. This was necessary, he insisted, because there were prejudiced notions of one another on each side of the Atlantic in a post Cold War climate where an unacknowledged search for adversaries might exist.

"Is it in Europe's interest to place the United States as our competitor?" Barroso asked, moving again into his pointed interrogative mode.

This time, he answered his own question himself. "It's nonsense," he said.

Solitude Française...

Journalist Eric Zemmour, author of the Chirac biography Chirac, L'homme qui ne s'aimait pas, published the following in to-day's Le Figaro:

For several days after the European elections, the French were everywhere. Skilled in the art of mobile warfare, they seemed to master politics like no one else. They gave one the impression that they were the last in Europe to believe in this. Or, at any rate, they faked it very well. The French have always had the rare gift of being able to hide their personal interests behind grand ideas. Chirac fought in the name of the "European power" ; [Socialst leader François] Hollande reestablished the "left-right split" ; [Former Education minister and UDF leader François] Bayrou sought to invent a genuine third way between economic liberalism and socialism.

It was a continuation of the electoral campaign. For a fortnight (only), and meeting with general indifference, [former Socialist Finance minister] Dominique Strauss-Kahn reinvented the Roman Empire, Bayrou found a new definition for the word federal, [Former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent] Fabius reintroduced his speeches on a Social Europe... from 1989. [Disgraced former RPR prime minister] Alain Juppé held hands with Helmut Kohl who had once held hands with François Mitterrand. The French, all French leaders, had behaved as if Europe were simply one big France, a sort of revived Napoleonic empire that our elites could adorn with both our cherished prefectures and our ingenious political ideas.

And now they are returning to Earth. The only claim to fame of the next president of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, is in having organized the great summit at the Azores where Bush, Blair and Aznar gathered on the eve of the war in Iraq. Jacques Chirac thus realized that the expansion of the European Union gave Britain a solid majority of which it certainly intended to make use. Even conjoined with Germany, France has found itself in the minority. "Europe's engine" is clogged. The Union's "bosses" have been toppled. Some are beginning to realize that the Franco-German duo can at best be no more than an alternative to the Europe that is forming, decomposing and reforming. An introverted position opposite a (greater) Europe that is supposedly following its natural tendancies: economic liberaism and Atlanticism, without complexes. A mere shoehorn for globalization. This "Françallemagne" can therefore be no more than a Continental and Lotharingian dyke buffeted by the tumult of the wider world. Land submerged by the sea.

And yet Chirac's Socialist opposition cannot take pleasure even in this. They have succeeded in having others forget that the government of Lionel Jospin ratified the increase in retirement age and the change in EDF's public status. On inviting [Spain's newly elected Socialist prime minister José Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero to Toulouse on June 9, François Hollande pretended not to notice that the Spanish prime minister had refused to sign the Social Europe charter presented to him by his "amigo François." Though it is only anecdotal, the matter of the agreements made between the European People's Party (EPP) and the European Socialist Party (ESP) in the European Parliament is indicative of the isolation of France's Socialists. Even our German allies refuse to follow them, this time. For years, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats kept the gravy flowing among friends with presidencies, commissions, pennants and official vehicles. Little arrangements founded on a genuine ideological proximity between Social Christians and Christan Socialists.

But since the '80s, the EPP has veered to the right, increasingly economically liberal, less and less social; even increasingly euroskeptical, given the arrival of Italian Berlusconians and British Conservatives. The Socialists followed this path the right. And to-day, when [France's education minister] François Fillon explains that "the Raffarin government is further the left" than its European Social Democrat colleagues, he is not contradicted. Lionel Jospin defended himself by quite rightly pointing out that he "was the furthest to the left in Europe."

It is precisely because he has learned the lessons of this evolution in the EPP that François Bayrou is leaving it. During the electoral campaign, Bayrou, who isn't economically liberal in the least, argued in favor of a Federal Europe that would speak with a single voice, opposite the "titans" of the planet. He could hardly join the same group as the British conservatives who reject the euro and the Italian Berlusconians who feel quite at home under the American umbrella. But, in order to form a parliamentary group, Bayrou must ally himself with anybody else, British liberals who favor Turkey's entry into the European Union which the UDF rejects ardently or Italian radicals or someone like Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who aren't at all hostile to gay marriage, from which the Christian Bayrou recoils in horror.

Such is the lot of the French in the new Europe, between Brussels and Strasbourg, between naïveté and cunning, between high universal principles and provincial ulterior motives, between idealism and cowardice, between arrogance and contempt for the balance of power. In the reactions of others, one can read surprise, exasperation or amusement with the French. Most of the time, they are not understood. Like dinosaurs? For years, we have been pedantically taught that Europe must be built in order to avoid isolation. We almost succeeded.

"Europe Could Finally Exist if It Agreed to Have Enemies"

Europe could finally come into existence if it agreed to have enemies. It would cease to be boring and colorless if it were to oppose someone.

Thus spake Dominique. Thus spake Le Monde's Dominique Dhombres. Thus spake the Dominique Dhombres column printed in France's newspaper of reference.

And you know who Dominique has in mind when he speaks of enemies, dont'cha? …Don'tcha?

No, it ain't the ayatollahs' Iran. No, it ain't the China of Tibet and Tien An Men square notoriety. Nope. It ain't the Russia that commits real torture (the bone-cracking, flesh-ripping kind) in Chechnya. Non. It ain't Ivory Coast where Laurent Gbagbo has killed untold hundreds of people. No, no. It ain't Zimbabwe where "terror teens" attack political opponents of Robert Mugabe with sticks fit with barbed wire. Non plus. It ain't the UN where a democracy was voted off the human rights commission, two countries with a history of torture (the bone-cracking, flesh-ripping kind) were voted to head same, and a graft scandal of epic proportions is unfolding. Naaahhh… And it sure as hell wasn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Nope, you know who it is…

It's good ol' Uncle Sam, the unholy terror from across the Atlantic.

Listen to how DD started the above rant, by waxing eloquently about a famous Frenchman of the 1960s:

Régis Debray … started out on his career by fighting American imperialism by the side of Che Guevara, and today he invites the Europeans, without many illusions it must be admitted, to exist while daring to oppose what he presents as the modern equivalent of the Roman Empire.

Wow, what a heroic character, that Debray. Et quelle lucidité! He really knows who the true enemy of mankind is. And we all know how much humanity suffered under the Roman Empire!

Yup, it's America, folks, whom courageous people need to dare oppose, whom they need to oppose along with anyone — any person, any country, any entity — who has the gall to ally him-, her-, or itself with Washington.

Just read what Dhombres has to say about the Eastern newcomers to the EU:

A free-trade zone under America's military and diplomatic protection is quite enough for them.

Translated freely: the Poles, the Czecks, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Balts, and all their neighbors are timid souls without dreams and/or blind and greedy retards without vision, if not outright cowardly traitors.

No, the entity the courageous Europeans need to oppose is Uncle Sam. (Who was it who dared to hint that Europeans are lacking in courage?!)

• In case you hadn't understood it already, that is why Dominique is always mocking, castigating, or otherwise attacking anything linked to America in his columns. Oui, now you know the reason…


• Now you know why Dominique and Le Monde liken Bush to Ben Laden, and use the strongest words for the Americans, while passing over those of their foes.


• Now you know why, in one column after another (after every coalition official's announcement that progress has been made in occupied Iraq), Dominique keeps repeating "As if the Iraqi people's opinion counted for anything in this affair".


• Now you know why, indeed, Le Monde and other French media rarely, if ever, bother to enquire into the thoughts and feelings of the Iraqi population; only the America-haters in the dissatisfied minority will do.


• Now you know why a Baghdad sculptor told Reason's Steven Vincent that "A lot of French journalists are sh*t … They come here and talk against the U.S. in a stupid way. They don’t care about the crimes of Saddam Hussein."


• Now you know why the French media go on and on and on and on and on about "torture" in Abu Ghraib, and drop stories concerning the "rebellion's" atrocities (mutilated bodies, severed heads, and the like) like a hot potato.


• Now you know why the French media go on and on and on and on and on about "lies" among the coalition partners, while ignoring all the news about the French, German, Russian, and other countries' cooperation with Saddam Hussein.


• Now you know why Englishmen, Italians, and Eastern Europeans are pictured as poodles, traitors, and butt-lickers.


• Now you know why France has gone out of its way to belittle America's contributions to World War II (or at least make an all-out effort to focus on all the supposedly "dark" sides of the American liberators).


• Now you know why France's media holds that the fight against Bush comes before a fair presentation of the news.


• Now you know why Jacques Chirac is constantly taking on George W Bush.


• Now you know why another Dominique, de Villepin, made such a fuss at the United Nations.


• Now you know why Paris opposes Washington all the way, all the time.

The French need an enemy. Europe needs an enemy. The world needs an enemy. (And preferably one with a nature that is easy-going.)

The French have been saying for years that they need to oppose the true enemy (and the rest of the EU and the rest of the world ought to go along with them), and Americans, with their easy-going good nature (which is all to their credit), believe that if they are indulgent enough, and if they explain themselves enough, and if they are patient and understanding enough, and if they are self-critical enough, and if they are willing enough to make changes (at the helm, in their policies, etc…), relations will improve.

Folks! That's a fairy tale. Don't believe it. It's a fairy tale. Dominique and people like him may believe it to be true (they probably do), but you shouldn't; it's all hogwash. It's all pferdemerde.

And if you aren't disgusted enough with Dominique's words regarding France's (and Europe's) need for an enemy, can you figure out what is most ironic in all this?

The greatest irony concerns the rational, reasonable, lucid, tolerant, humanistic, fraternal, and peace-loving Frenchmen and Europeans and their desire to oppose America because its inhabitants (or their leaders) are supposedly blind, greedy, treacherous, simplistic, racist, and inhuman warmongers.

Do you remember what was coyly suggested, both in the United States itself and abroad, as the Cold War came to an end in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Who would serve as America's enemy now, now that the communists had been defeated? The sly question laden with irony implied both that the communist camp had not really been a threat, but simply a different culture (if you believe that, ask yourselves why the Poles, the Balts, and all their neighbors are such eager allies of Washington) whom those crass and intolerant Americans couldn't or wouldn't bring themselves understand, and that those irrational warmongers needed an enemy at any cost.

The older I get, and the more I look at the world, the more I notice several things: one of them is that the inhabitants of America's capitalist society are probably some of the most generous souls — generous souls, not only generous people — in the world. Another is that all the sins, real and supposed, that are generally levelled against them either are usually (if not always) worse in other countries or hide sins that are worse, and this is true not least in those countries where the criticizing is the loudest. And one of these sins is the idea that Americans supposedly need an enemy at any cost.

Because therein lies the irony. The people needing an enemy at any cost are not primarily, were not primarily, the Americans. They are the French, they were the French. In many ways, they seem to be the Europeans! Since this is obviously unfair to the Eastern Europeans, I feel pretty safe in saying that the people needing an enemy at any cost certainly seem to be the people who have been most cosseted in the past 60 years and least felt the danger of a real enemy. For all France's crowing about its logic, its lucidité, and its capacity for reasoning, its protected stance might appear to be something that has destroyed a rational sense of judgment.

Dominique doesn't realize it, but in a sense he has showed France's true colors, and exposed its agenda, and revealed its sorry sense of judgment, as well as any critic of France and its people and society ever did.

Monty Python on American Imperialism

Since Dominique Dhombres praises a French intellectual for chastizing the United States as the modern equivalent of the Roman Empire, I thought it not unhelpful to present one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite films. In fact, any time somebody talks to me about imperialism, American or other, modern or old, I have to resist the urge to jump the person, tie him to a chair in front of a video player, and show him the scene in a loop for 48 hours straight.

In the scene, the members of one of the most patriotic, determined, extremist, and intransigeant resistance groups fighting against the Roman occupier have gathered in a dark room for a secret meeting. All the men of the People's Front of Judea are masked, except for their leaders, and when the scene starts, the top honcho is ending a pep talk.

Furious about the Roman Empire's occupation of their land, Reg spits out: “They bled us white, the bastards! They’ve taken everything we have.” He continues raving and ranting about how they took everything from their “fathers” and their “fathers' fathers”, before ending with a majestic rhetorical question. “And what have they ever given us in return?” With that, he stops, and crosses his arms, feeling very satisfied. He realizes that he has made one of the best speeches of his career.

Just then, a shy masked commando raises a finger. “The aqueduct…”

“What?” asks Reg.

“The aqueduct”, repeats the man.

“Oh yeah yeah they did give us that, uh-huh that’s true…”

Another commando, as masked as his colleague, chimes in. “And the sanitation…”

Stan, Reg's second-in-command sitting next to him, intervenes with naïve energy: “Oh yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.”

Murmurs of agreement rise from the commandos in the room.

The meeting is not at all going in the direction Reg expected it to, and he's starting to lose patience: “Yeah, all right, I’ll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things the Romans have done…”

Another terrorist interrupts him: “And the roads…”

Reg, brusquely: “Oh well obviously the roads, I mean the roads go without saying, don’t they?! … But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads…”

Other terrorists, who have definitely not understood the purpose of their leader’s speech and his rhetorical question, chime in: “Irrigation” “Medicine” “Education” “Public baths” “And the wine” while their comrades nod and murmur words of agreement (“Yuh, yuh that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left”).

Stan adds, innocently: “And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg”. Reg’s lips have become ever more pursed and his expression ever darker as he taps his fingers impatiently, but nobody seems to notice, least of all Francis, Reg’s other neighbor, who adds with joviality: “Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could in a place like this!” (general laughter)

Finally, with a sharp voice, Reg cuts the discussion short: “Alright, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, the roads, a fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

A shy finger goes up…“Brought peace…”

“Oh, peace! SHUT UP!”

Ebay.com: do you have the world's smallest violin? I might be needing one.	Ebay.fr: proposez-vous le plus petit violon au monde? Il se peut que j'en aie besoin.
We are not all French Zeropeans.	Nous ne sommes pas tous des franchouilles zéropéens.

It was the sound of bones cracking and flesh being ripped	Oui, c'était le son des os qui se brisaient et de la chair qui se déchirait
Le Monde Al Jazeera on the Seine misses the Saddam Years.	Le Monde Al Jazira sur Seine trouve que les années Saddam manquent cruellement.
When Saddam was around we had the sound to go with it ...

Super Size Danger from Yankee-Land

For French people wanting their anti-American prejudices to be "proven" by "documentaries", it's been a good year. Following Fahrenheit 9/11, Liberty Bound, and Le Monde selon Bush (all were lionized in Le Monde), now is the turn of Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. In his article, Thomas Sentinel explains how "the American director warns of the dangers of food served in fast-food chains", talks of the "McDonald's chain's misdeeds" and Spurlock's self-imposed "infernal diet".

Although Sentinel admits that there is something fishy about propaganda-type films (such as this one and Michael Moore's), where an essential ingredient to the great documentary works is missing — liberty ("one of those documentaries that build a reality … nothing here occurs that has not been organized, planned, wanted … everything or almost joins in the demonstration of a thesis, with beings and places having no other reason for being on celluloid") — in the final analysis he comes down on the side of filmmakers.

In other words, what Spurlock confirms is the French (and European) certainty that the darkest, most destructive, and most insidious dangers facing the world today comes from Uncle Sam, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Hollywood, and a mouse named Mickey. The film gives shivers, warns Sentinel.

I don't wish to defend obesity, American or otherwise, but here is a slight reality check:

(By the way, here is the movie that Disney chose to distribute instead of Fahrenheit 9/11. Don't expect to see it in French theaters, though.)

What is it about Socialists and murder?

Pourquoi le meurtre branche-t-il tellement les socialos?

Paris mayor Delanoë honors Mumia, and now takes the defense of Battisti. French Socialist Party chairman Hollande makes his pilgrimage to Battisti's prison. A appeals court has ruled that Battisti is now good to be shipped out. French socialist commie red-brown-greens are now screaming like stuck pigs that French jurisprudence (meaning the despicable 'Mitterand doctrine' of providing safe haven to leftist terrorists) is not being respected. Berlusconi will know what to do with this trash.

Mumia béatifié par le Maire de Paris Delanoë, qui ensuite prend la défense de Battisti. Le chef des Socialos franchouilles Hollande effectue son pèlerinage à la Santé. Une cour d'appel a rendu un avis favorable à l'extradition de Battisti. Les socialos-cocos-rouge-bruns-verts franchouilles couinent comme des porcs égorgés que la jurispridence française en la matière (un truc ignoble du nom de 'doctrine Mitterand' qui accorde un abri sûr aux terroristes de gôche) n'est pas respectée. Berlusconi saura quoi faire avec cette ordure.

Please give me lots of Tabasco with that	Je prendrai ça avec un max d'harissa
The anti-semite Saddamite Willem in Libération PropagandaStaffel fails to mention how many Iraqis were turned into hamburger meat by Saddam himself. French Saddamite media is playing up Saddam's combativity (the French envy combativity in anybody) and are starting to play up an anti-death penalty angle. This is one burger that might be better than White Castle.	L'antisémite saddamite Willem dans Libé PropagandaStaffel passe sous silence le nombre d'irakiens eux-mêmes charcutés par Saddam. Les médias franchouilles saddamites mettent l'accent sur le caractère combatif de Saddam (les fwançais envient toujours un caractère combatif chez les autres) et commencent à monter un discours pour contrer la peine capitale.

First French Arab Named Minister... in Iraq

It seems that, as a French Arab (or an Assyrian), you're more likely to get a job in government in Iraq than in France.

Back in February, I blogged the latest spectacular failure in including Arabs in the French political process. Though Maghrebans make up 10% of French society (slightly smaller than the percentage of blacks in the US population), there is not a single Arab mayor in France. In December, PM Raffarin had a list of forty to fifty candidates of Arab extraction drawn up to stand on the UMP list the March parliamentary elections. Three weeks later, the list had been cleansed of almost all the Arab names on it and the handful remaining began withdrawing in protest. There are now only 7 Arabs in the French parliament (there are more Arab MPs in Israel, a country 90% smaller than France!). Until then, there had not been a single Arab member of parliament (and therefore not a single Arab minister). Currently, France has only two Arabs holding executive public office: Aïssa Dermouche, prefect of the Jura department in Loire-Atlantique. (You'll remember how his nomination was greeted. It wasn't pretty.) There is also undersecretary for Sustainable Development Tokia Saïfi (Environment Ministry) who called for affirmative action and told Le Monde "I am calling on political officials [to confront this problem]. Can they ignore the diversity of our society?"

Meanwhile in Iraq... Le Parisien's Baghdad correspondent scored an interview with Pascale Isho Warda, 43, the new Iraqi minister for Immigration and Refugees. Ms. Warda is an Assyrian Catholic and a life-long opponent of Saddam, (who tortured her father). She also lived in W.'s favorite place, Sarcelles (just outside Paris), for 15 years. The interview on Le Parisien's Web site doesn't display properly for me but the newspaper publicized the interview by allowing the AP to preview it. They report that she said, in part, "after all that Saddam did, he doesn't deserve to live." She hoped that Saddam's trial would come quickly "because we must rid ourselves of this problem as soon as possible. Saddam is a monstrous criminal, a murderer who killed more than a million Iraqis, according to the most conservative estimates." [The June issue of National Geographic contained an excellent report on the Shia of Iraq. On page 28, the author wrote, "the Free Prisoners Society estimates that five to seven million people 'disappeared' in the past two decades, the majority of them Shiites." I don't know that that's possible but it's likely the other end of the scale in terms of estimates.] Would Saddam get death? "Without predicting what the final decision of the judges will be," Warda said, "I am personally in favor of applying this sentence to him."

Warda laments France's attitude toward the intervention: "saying no to war was to say yes to Saddam so that could continue to massacre us." According to Moroccan daily Le Matin, Warda added to this that "Freedom comes at a price and France didn't want to see this. It retreated behind the UN, partly to defend its own economic interests." But, she said, "France is not unwelcome in Iraq. To the contrary, if she wants to, she can yet play a major role here." Finally, she admitted to fearing for her life in the current circumstances.

On June 5, Libération ran an interview with her: Ms. Warda grew up in Daudiya, a village in Kurdistan. "We lived well. My father, a landlord, farmed several hundred hectares." But Saddam's repeated military offensives spread death and destruction. "Our village was dynamited four times in a row." Her father was arrested on suspicion of aiding the peshmergas in 1968 and tortured for six months. "I was only seven years old but I'll always remember the day papa came home. He had a long beard and all his fingernails had been torn out," she says. At 17, she taught the Catechism and sang The Fables of La Fontaine to children in Aramaic. "France beckoned to me even then because the priests taught me about the lives of Napoleon and the French saints." She was an insubordinate student and refused Ba'thist indoctrination or enrollment in the youth sections. At 20, she won a grant to study philosophy at the Auxilium center in Lourdes, where she spent 8 years. "I wanted to study philosophy in order to forge weapons that would allow me to battle the Ba'th..."

When the Anfal campaigns began in 1988, her family fled to the Turkish border after narrowly avoiding bombs during a long exodus. France at first refused her family's request for asylum but at a refugee camp in Diyarbakir Warda met President Mitterrand's wife Danièle (one of the architects of Operation Provide Comfort who was regrettably driven by senility or cowardice to oppose the US intervention in 2003). The first lady helped Warda's family settle in Marseilles. Says Warda, "When I saw the refugee camps, I said goodbye to philosophy. For me, it became obvious that I had to focus on matters of human rights and politics." She obtained a law degree in Lyon in 1993 and earned a living as a court interpreter while working for the rights of Assyrian women. Armed struggle became "a necessity" to struggle against "Saddam's atrocious regime. [...] The only solution." She became involved in a clandestine insurrection. "Thousands of Assyrio-Chaldeans fought alongside the Kurds in 2003 without engaging in looting and other immoral acts."

She also says that "the American occupation is an unavoidable consequence, the price of our freedom... for we do not forget that freedom is the most important thing. We had to put an end to Saddam at any price... I said at any price."

(Hear her interviewed by NPR's Scott Simon here.)