Thursday, April 24, 2003 :::
 
A History of French Policy in West Africa. NOT Boring, rest assured.Everyone has noticed how deeply cynical the French are being about lifting UN sanctions against Iraq, when they profited immensely by, apparently, violating the old embargo with gusto and elan. Such cynicism should hardly surprise us. I reprting here my own brief history of Frencyh policy in West Africa, first published on a private listserve. It is more interesting than one might think, because brutal cynicism has its own kind of perverse fascination.

The involvement of France with West Africa is interesting. When, in
1958, DeGaulle for all intents and purposes seized power in France
and stopped a brewing civil war and an insurrection in Algeria, he
decided that the best way of handling France's empire was to do so
once and for all, in one moment, rather than dribble out the
inevitable the way the British were doing. So he went on a trip to
every West African nation (as created by France), and offered them
the option of "independence" with complete dependence and control by
France (including, I think,free and mandatory education of elite
children in Paris), or complete separation from Paris with no
benefits. He thus created, and maintained, a new empire without the
name.

WHen Mitterand became President, at a joint meeting he told the
countries that had opted for Plan A not to worry about the fact that
he was a Socialist--the elites could keep being elite. He had
appointed the famous Communist Regis Debray (author of a book
called "Revultion within the Revolution") as an advisor for Third
World affairs, and he was pretty blunt in reassuring them that Debray
would cover other Third World countries. When Debray's presence
proved too controversial, Mitterand kicked him onto their (strictly
advisory) Supreme Court and forgot about reforming France's
relationship with these dictators.

Chirac is cut from the same cloth. When, last year, the Cote
d'Ivoire acted with frightening independence and elected a leader
France didn't like, M. Chirac responded by pretty much funding
invasions from across all of its borders, or at least many observers, with good reason, feel.
He then forced the elected
government to accept, in several key cabinet posts, rebel leaders,
after a considerable amount of blood had been spilled. (I believe
the number of dead people is in the several thousands.)

This could explain why the West African governments spoke with one
voice in supporting France in the UN.

As for the US allies, I would point out first of all that the
European ones have populations that far outstrip the combined
populations of France, Germany, and Belgium. And I would also add
that the EU was first created under the shadow of theSoviet Empire,
and it was a commonplace among European commentators that French
leaders, particularly Mitterand, saw the EU as a way to control
Germany, not us.

Well, now the Soviet Empire is history, and France and Germany have
found themselves at the center of a much larger free Europe, and they
are suddenly not so important. Spanish Prime Minister Aznar was
approached by the WSJournal Europe for an op-ed piece--in the same
way that Donald Graham of the Post has dinner with Tom Daschle all
the time--and ON HIS OWN Aznar rounded up the other seven leaders who
signed it, including Italy, one of the world's largest economies.
(I'm there all the time, and, no, I cannot figure how the famous
Italian lack of organization squares with their astounding economic
success.) They were joined by the Vilnius 11--i.e., states that had
been conquered by the Soviets. None of them were coerced by the US
government. We have lobbied every government, I am sure, but I can
tell you from my days at the UN that the US has a reputatation for
not lobbying very hard, although this administration is different.

My more basic question is, why, if the US administration is wrong
about the war, must it also be true that it is wrong, and dishonest,
about everything it does? Why can it not be that the President is
doing what he thinks is right, our allies have joined us because they
agree, and that the US merely engages in politics the same as
everyone else? Bush may be wrong, but why does it have to go all the
way through everything he says and does?

And why can our opponents not be motivated the same way and just as
political, and just as sincere, except...

France, which is uniformly described by other European countries
as "cynical," a judgment with which nearly every West African citizen
would agree.



::: posted by A Mind That Suits at 9:14 PM


0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

What doesn't kill me, makes me laugh... usually.