[Culturechat] NYTimes.com Article: Flogging the French

[kraut907@aol.com]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by kraut907@aol.com.



Flogging the French

January 31, 2003
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF 




 

Ah, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we fretted
about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does
everybody hate us? 

The European edition of Time magazine has been conducting a
poll on its Web site: "Which country poses the greatest
danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so
far, the responses are: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8
percent; the United States, 84 percent. 

O.K., it's just an Internet poll and not worth the pixels
it's not printed on. Sure, the Poles and Portuguese may
still dance with us. But if there were an extra spot on the
axis of evil, the world would vote us in. Somehow, in a
year's time, we've become Iraq. 

John le Carré put it this way in a (representatively
venomous) essay this month in The Times of London: "America
has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but
this is the worst I can remember." 

So what should we make of this? Does it matter that we've
somehow morphed in public perceptions from the world's only
superpower to the world's super-rogue state? 

Of course it matters. 

The macho notion that we'll do what
we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go
[insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We
mustn't become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither
should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war
that will hugely aggravate this distemper - which will
nurture more terrorism. 

One example: In 1991 the U.S. leaned on Saudi Arabia to let
us keep military bases there after the gulf war. We ignored
its concerns about public opinion because the bases would
improve our security. 

Wrong. In fact the bases radicalized many young Saudis, and
persuaded Osama bin Laden to turn his sights on the U.S.
What seemed a shrewd move to improve our security ended up
undermining our friends and strengthening our enemies. 

Moreover, while the lack of allied support won't prevent us
from getting into a war with Iraq, it may prevent us from
getting out. The U.S. sees its role as the globe's SWAT
team, but after we have ousted Saddam and whistled for the
cleanup crew it's not clear that the allies will want to
help. Nor will they pay the bill for this Iraq war as they
did the last one. Each time Don Rumsfeld insults Europe, it
costs us another $20 billion. 

It's also possible that if all your friends say you're
making a mistake, they're not mendacious back-stabbers but
simply right. As Kipling said: "trust yourself when all men
doubt you / But make allowance for their doubting too." 

In fairness, I also have to say that President Bush is
right that we must reserve the option of invading countries
unilaterally. Think back to 1993, when we let European
passivity, particularly by John Major and François
Mitterrand, block military strikes in Yugoslavia until tens
of thousands of people had been killed. In retrospect we
should have ignored the Europeans and unilaterally attacked
Serbia to stop the genocide. Ditto in Rwanda. But in Iraq
there is no such urgency. 

Of course the anti-Americanism is unfair. It's particularly
irritating coming from the French, who pandered shamelessly
to Baghdad during the 1990's to get oil-for-food contracts,
thus undermining containment and creating today's crisis. 

Yes, the French can be exasperating. Years ago I worked for
a summer on a French farm, and my boss constantly denounced
the English as penible - tiresome - so one day I asked why.
"Because they fought us at Waterloo!" he stormed, arms
flailing. "If Napoleon had been left alone, he could have
created a common market 150 years ago. It was penible of
them to resist!" 

But just because the French can be penible doesn't mean
they are always wrong. The French and Germans have a real
argument against invading Iraq - that containment and
deterrence are better than invasion. While it's fair to
disagree, it's puerile to refuse to listen. 

The most sensible suggestion for confronting
anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American
official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts
itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation,
they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong,
they'll welcome us." 

That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate.
He was dead right - back then. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31KRIS.html?ex=1045072474&ei=1&en=8533ed8d6f066d40



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help@nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company