Thursday, December 19, 1996
U.S.-FRENCH RIVALRY
Despite news reports that officials on both sides of the
Atlantic are trying to patch up U.S.-French ties, sorely
tried by a series of quarrels over issues ranging from NATO
to the choice of a new UN secretary general, a number of
French commentators remained resentful of what one called
"U.S. bulldozer diplomacy." Most observers in France and
elsewhere were aghast at the level to which the antagonism
rose last week, when back-and-forth charges erupted over
whether French Foreign Minister de Charette deliberately
snubbed the U.S. secretary of state by walking out shortly
before NATO Secretary General Solana's toast in honor of
Mr. Christopher's retirement. London's liberal Guardian
concluded: "The incident seemed to reflect the gloomy state
of Franco-American relations." Centrist Stuttgarter
Zeitung--somewhat tongue-in-cheek--added, "We are warning
our friends against waging an open war.... Maybe a duel
between Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton at dawn would be
the only way out." But French editorialists failed to find
even a hint of humor in the developments. RTL radio
maintained, "This is a U.S. campaign against the French
because it disapproves of France's recent diplomatic steps
in the Middle East, in Africa, at the UN and about NATO."
Regional Les Dernieres Nouvelles d' Alsace's
grandiloquently asserted, "Why is there this tension?...
Not because of a little snub...but because Europe is
reaffirming itself and its voice is France."
Les Dernieres put its finger on what many in the media were
saying: That at the core of U.S.-French antagonism lies
what Paris portrays as its principled attempts to curb
"U.S. hegemony," and what other European critics view as a
more selfish French goal. Denmark's center-right Jyllands-
Posten, for instance, suggested: "It would be a shame, if
Western unity was destroyed by France's unrealistic
attempts to act like a superpower in competition with the
U.S." Since France's leap into the Middle East peace
process earlier this year and Secretary Christopher's trip
to Africa, pundits have played up the rivalry as both
countries tread into each other's "spheres." Last week,
however, in addition to the row over the Solana toast,
France suffered a defeat at the UN with the election of the
U.S.-backed candidate, and saw its bid to place a European
as head of NATO's southern command stymied by the U.S.
refusal to hand over the Naples post. These losses sparked
a lot of hand-wringing among Parisian writers. Left-of-
center Liberation judged, "It is difficult and risky for
an average-sized nation to act as if it were a
superpower.... Chirac has lost on all fronts." Right-of-
center Les Echos lamented that the UN decision was "clearly
a setback for French diplomacy.... Many African
countries will now draw certain conclusions: France has
lost some of its importance in Africa." Others, however,
remained defiant. Right-of-center Le Figaro hinted that
France's demands for more European control in NATO--if not
satisfied--will paralyze progress on other fronts,
including the cherished project of Alliance enlargement.
Nevertheless, there were voices urging compromise and
cooperation. Right-of-center France Soir held, "The time
has come for Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac to put an end
to the guerrilla war of the chanceries." France and the
U.S., Catholic La Croix pointed out, "are an old couple
which has been fighting for 49 years.... But...in crucial
moments, France has never failed the U.S."
This survey is based on 35 reports from 8 countries, Dec.
12-19.
EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely
EUROPE
FRANCE: "The War Of The Solana Toast"
Michel Leclercq noted in an AFP dispatch (12/19): "In the
last few months, Franco-American conflicts in matters of
diplomacy, the economy and cultural issues have abounded:
Iraq, the Middle East, Zaire and the Great Lakes area, the
UN election, the Helms-Burton Act.... But it is over NATO
that the two nations are battling, with the risk of
blocking the renovation process of the Atlantic
Alliance.... Dominique Moisi of the French Institute for
International Relations comments: 'These tensions can be
explained by the new international context which prevails
since the fall of the Communist bloc: There is no longer a
common enemy to force us to work together.' As the only
superpower, the United States has difficulty in accepting
the fact that its supremacy might be questioned."
"U.S. Campaign Against The French"
Michele Cotta held on RTL radio (12/19): "Paul Quiles has
preferred to believe the U.S. version without checking the
facts. For the Socialist Party it seems that its
confidence lies with the most powerful. We can believe de
Charette (when he gives his version.) This is a U.S.
campaign against the French because it disapproves of
France's recent diplomatic steps in the Middle East, in
Africa, at the UN and about NATO.... Madeleine Albright,
the Iron Lady, who is well known for her allergy to France,
will be heading U.S. foreign policy. De Charette has
kindly wished her luck. I think he is very generous
because he is the one who will probably be needing a
bulletproof vest."
"Final Agreement Or Nothing"
Baudoin Bollaert said in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/18):
"Everyone seems to agree on one point: The final agreement
(on NATO) will be global or there will be no agreement at
all. In other words, it appears that the internal
renovation of the Alliance, with the emergence of a
`European pillar,' cannot be separated from its
enlargement to the East."
"France And U.S. At Odds"
Jean-Claude Kiefer remarked in regional Les Dernieres
Nouvelles d' Alsace (12/17): "Why is there this tension
between Paris and Washington? Not because of a little
snub...but because Europe is reaffirming itself and its
voice is France. Why is there misunderstanding? Because
of Europe's emancipation? The Euro will upset the
dollar...the EU will have a joint European foreign policy.
In the end, it will have its `European pillar' within
NATO, because Europe wants to get rid of the label
`political dwarf'."
"Franco-American Differences"
Francois de Rose, French ambassador to Washington, said in
right-of-center Le Figaro (12/17): "The question of the
Southern command is only one aspect of a larger question,
which France rightly asks: that of Europe's position in an
Alliance concerned today with its enlargement, its
relations with Russia, the emergence of a European pillar,
the question of Central and Eastern Europe's stability,
the dangers of nuclear proliferation.... It is
unfortunate that the tense relations between Paris and
Washington might compromise the solution to questions which
are urgent and certainly more important for the future of
Europe."
"Bulldozer Diplomacy"
Jacques Malmassari concluded in right-of-center France Soir
(12/17): "The time has come for Bill Clinton and Jacques
Chirac to put an end to the guerrilla war of the
chanceries.... It's not
necessary to be an expert to see that Paris-Washington
relations become tense every time French diplomacy turns
somewhat aggressive.... For example, the Middle East,
Africa, the UN.... The U.S. bulldozer diplomacy (over
these issues) can possibly be positive in the short term,
but Bill Clinton should realize that it often breaks
alliances and always ruins friendships."
"France-U.S.: False Quarrel"
Under the headline above, right-of-center Les Echos
remarked in its editorial (12/17): "The NATO defense
ministers' meeting today should resolve certain issues, but
will face a major stumbling bloc on NATO's reform, a
direct consequence of the poor relations between Paris and
Washington.... The fact that Washington and Paris
overreact about matters of diplomatic protocol is indeed
indicative of the acrimony characterizing their
relationship. Almost everywhere, in Bosnia, the Maghreb,
in Africa, in the Middle East, at the UN, France's
attitude has been in conflict with America's hegemony....
With regard to NATO reforms, the conflict has become a
caricature of itself.... Paris has asked that the
Southern command should be given to a European.
Washington has falsely but intentionally interpreted it as
France's demand for the command.... One might be tempted
to believe what some experts say: that Paris and
Washington are using these pretexts to avoid NATO's
renovation for now."
"France's Piteous Retreat"
Jacques Amalric wrote in left-of-center Liberation (12/16):
"It is difficult and risky for an average-sized nation to
act as if it were a superpower.... Chirac has lost on
all fronts. Not only has Clinton managed to oust Boutros
Ghali, he has also been successful in imposing his
candidate.... France, isolated, had no choice but to begin
a piteous retreat and concede...that Annan may after all
make a good secretary general. This wonderful conjuring
act barely hides our leaders' forgetfulness: In this post-
Cold War era, there is only one superpower left. And if
one wants to measure up, one needs some allies. It was not
the case during this UN fiasco.... The time is over when
France's diplomacy could find its essence in Soviet-
American rivalry. Russia, faced with a burgeoning Europe,
prefers by far to have a privileged dialogue with
Washington, via NATO."
"France Has Lost Some Of Its Importance In Africa"
Stephane Dupont said in right-of-center Les Echos (12/16):
"French officials were never too happy about Annan's
personality.... Also, he comes from a part of Africa
outside France's `sphere of influence.' His nomination is
clearly a setback for French diplomacy. In spite of
France's continued presence and influence in Africa...many
African countries will now draw certain conclusions:
France has lost some of its importance in Africa, mostly
in its role within international organizations."
"Should We Take This Fight Seriously?"
Guillaume Goubert wondered in Catholic La Croix (12/16):
"Is the 'Solana Toast' going to start a war between France
and the United States? Who is telling the truth (about
this incident?) It is hardly important. What is important
is that the incident lead to clarifying U.S.- French
relations. In the past months, subjects of friction have
been numerous.... But France and the United States are an
old couple which has been fighting for 49 years....
(France) has not given up addressing the world, a role
which Washington does not want to share. But at the same
time, in crucial moments, France has never failed the
United States.... And the United States recognizes this
willingly, adding that there are also advantages to having
a partner with ideas and a will of its own.... This is
why we should not take too seriously this period of
tension. There will be others, to the delight of most
commentators."
"U.S.-France: The Start Of A Reconciliation"
Michel Colomes commented in right-of-center weekly Le Point
(12/14), "The accumulation of differences which have
recently sprung up between France and the United States
looks very much like grounds for a divorce. And yet, after
a series of sweet and sour exchanges--with some very
uncivil gestures like de Charette's snub toward
Christopher--the time has come for a change in tone: In
Washington and in Paris, the word is out to calm things
down.... What is important, according to the optimists--
mandated?--is the great relationship between the two
presidents and the closeness in their policies for the long
term."
"A Snub Or A Ploy?"
Right-of-center France Soir held (12/13), "The United
States is fit to be tied about the de Charette-Christopher
incident.... This affair illustrates the state of
exasperation reached recently in French-American
relations.... Paris denies the incident which yesterday
had both chanceries in a state of agitation.... The
incident may at first appear minor, but it shows the high
degree of sensitivity which exists in Franco-American
relations."
"What Happened?"
According to Baudoin Bollaert in right-of-center Le Figaro
(12/13): "Paris denies, while Washington confirms.... Did
nothing happen then? It would be too simple.... It is
easy to understand the reaction of a high U.S. official.
But it is difficult to imagine that de Charette would have
knowingly snubbed the U.S. secretary of state. The two men
have had their differences, but they have always had
respect for one another. A few days ago de Charette made a
gift to Christopher of the year's French literary
prizes.... Nothing forced him to make such a gesture."
"Climate Certainly Not Favorable"
In left-of-center Liberation (12/13), Jacques Amalric
observed concerning the search for an African to head the
UN: "This assassin's game could go on forever, with total
disregard for the candidates themselves, if the choice did
not have to be made by December 17.... Certain Quai
d'Orsay experts are advising the Elysee to negotiate: A
vote for Annan against the promise for the position of
deputy secretary general. It would be surprising if Chirac
were to go back on his position, especially in these times
of French-U.S. confrontation in Africa, the Middle East and
NATO reforms. The climate is certainly not favorable when
we see Washington and Paris arguing whether or not de
Charette congratulated Christopher in Brussels.... These
infantile conflicts exist only on the surface.... They
could deprive Africa of their candidate."
"UN: France's Dilemma"
Readers of right-of-center Le Figaro (12/12) saw this piece
by Jean-Louis Turlin: "With its UN vote (against Annan),
France is being suspected of wanting to get back at the
United States.... The French do not appreciate the two
votes of `discouragement' against the three francophone
candidates and attributed them to Washington and London."
"UN Secretary General Vote Little To Do With Candidates'
Merits"
Afsane Bassir Pour judged in left-of-center Le Monde
(12/12): "Results of this first vote have little to do with
the merits of the candidates but rather with the rivalries
existing between France and the United States.... A
diplomat confided: 'France's veto is not directed against
the candidate; it is directed against the United States.'"
"Pawns In U.S.-French Duel"
In the opinion of Agnes Rotivel in Catholic La Croix
(12/12): "'The complex game being played out at the
UN...underscores today's crisis in Franco-American
relations; a sort of psychological
misunderstanding...where the slightest dispute takes on
dramatic proportions,' admits one of the (UN)
candidates.... A certain amount of exasperation is
beginning to emerge among African candidates who do not
appreciate being used as pawns in this duel between France
and the United States."
"NATO Postponed"
Left-of-center Le Monde's Daniel Vernet maintained (12/12):
"The restructuring of NATO has been postponed because of a
dispute between France and the United States over the
Southern command.... This has led to the adjournment of a
global agreement on NATO reforms.... Jacques Chirac has
committed his authority to the issue, because he feels it
is symbolic of NATO's capacity for change.... In answer
to Washington's excuse that Europe is not sufficiently
active in the region, Paris has answered that we must get
out of this vicious circle whereby Europe is kept under
U.S. tutelage because it does not assume its
responsibilities. On the contrary, says Paris, it is by
giving Europe responsibilities that it will become
committed.... Solutions to end the stalemate have been
systematically rejected by both parties."
"NATO: U.S. Instrument Of Influence"
Rene Lamy asserted in communist l'Humanite (12/12):
"America's stance over NATO's enlargement to the East can
be explained by its geostrategy to conserve world
leadership.... NATO should have disappeared after the end
of the Cold War, but Clinton's administration is trying to
use it as an instrument of influence in Eastern and
Central Europe, thereby opposing West European nations in
what they feel is their 'private preserve.'"
GERMANY: "Rough Winds Between France, U.S."
Paris correspondent Erich Bonse filed the following
editorial for business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf
(12/16), "U.S.-French relations are currently not under a
lucky star. The governments in Washington and Paris are
having a row not only about their policy in the Middle
East and Africa, but also about the reform of NATO. This
is why it is now the more pleasant that one conflict has
been settled: the controversy about Boutros Ghali....
This French concession, however, is tantamount to a grave
French defeat. The United States succeeded not only in
torpedoing Boutros Ghali's re-election, but it also
succeeded in isolating France on the African continent....
"For the Paris government which considers itself to be the
advocate of Africa, this is the more annoying because the
Washington government is now also disputing France's
leadership role in Africa. Outgoing Secretary of State
Warren Christopher said in October that the Dark Continent
is no longer France's unique sphere of influence. Only
recently, the United States asserted its view, saying that
the sending of an intervention force to the trouble spot
of Eastern Zaire would no longer be necessary. The Paris
government considers this move and similar ones before to
be an attempt to enforce U.S. hegemonic interests without
showing consideration for French or European interests.
The episode last week during a farewell dinner for Warren
Christopher in Brussels...made clear how sensitively the
Paris government reacts.... The French government denied
the story, but the impression remains that a rough wind is
blowing over the Atlantic."
"A Clinton-Chirac Duel At Dawn Might Be Best Solution"
Adrian Zielcke opined in an editorial in centrist
Stuttgarter Zeitung (12/13), "Adult men obviously have
nothing better to do than return to kindergarten times once
in a while.... The following happened: Warren Christopher,
President Clinton's loyal secretary of state, will give up
his office. And of course, during the latest meeting of
NATO's foreign ministers, Secretary General Solana raised
his glass and proposed a toast to Warren Christopher. But
at the same moment Solana raised his glass, one member of
the round got up and left the room. It was France's
Foreign Minister de Charette. An embarrassing quiet
hovered over the room, and the cordial farewell failed.
"France and the United States are keeping up a running
quarrel against each other. The controversy focuses on
influence in Africa, AFSOUTH, their own significance in
the Middle East...and it is now being continued in the UN
Security Council.... There is no doubt that Boutros
Ghali's successor is to be an African...but now the
Americans have dared to support an African who does not
speak French. The consequence was that France used its
right to veto and now the United States has vetoed the
French candidate.
"We are warning our friends against waging an open war:
The United States, whose cultural influence the French
have wanted to restrict for a long time, could send
Terminator Arnold Schwarzeneggger into the fight and some
other rambos, which cannot be stopped even by the force de
frappe. Maybe a duel between Jacques Chirac and Bill
Clinton at dawn would be the only way out."
BRITAIN: "U.S. Fury At French Snub To Christopher"
The conservative Daily Telegraph reported (12/13):
"American officials reacted with fury yesterday to a snub
of the outgoing secretary of state by the French foreign
minister.... Mr. Herve de Charette is seen by many of his
staff as a bumbling amateur and is reported to irritate
Prime Minister Juppe, who is said to have told aides that
de Charette 'is not up to the job.'"
"French Diplomatic Intransigence Makes Waves Across The
Atlantic"
The liberal Guardian reported (12/13): "Long-simmering
transatlantic resentment of France's assertive foreign
policy is coming to the boil as President Chirac stands his
ground in confrontations with Washington over the UN and
NATO. The public bickering grew louder yesterday after
reports that Foreign Minister de Charette walked out during
a toast to Secretary of State Christopher in Brussels....
The incident seemed to reflect the gloomy state of Franco-
American relations.... France and the United States have
clashed most bitterly when one is seen as 'trespassing' on
the other's traditional sphere of influence."
BELGIUM: "French And Americans Do Not Speak Same Language"
Maroun Labaki commented in independent Le Soir (12/13),
"Angered by the fate of the Egyptian diplomat who was their
favorite, the French are now opposing the appointment of
Ghanaian Kofi Annan, the Americans' candidate. France
solemnly demands that the secretary general speak French.
This is already somewhat particular.... French is a
marvelous language and we should all be proud of it. But
is it reasonable to dig such trenches and to conjure up
such defensive lines around our language?... Moreover,
Kofi Annan speaks perfect French. That is not the issue.
It is the sulkiness that marks French-American relations.
It showed up at the UN and also at NATO, where French and
Americans clashed this week--it happened in Brussels--with
regard to the controversial Southern command of the
Atlantic Organization.
"An incident deserves to be mentioned in this respect.
Yesterday, the influential International
Herald Tribune, quoting the not less influential Washington
Post, reported on its front page that French Minister of
Foreign Affairs Herve de Charette insulted his American
counterpart Warren Christopher to whom a friendly homage
was being paid on the eve of his political retirement.
"According to our American colleagues, the chief of French
diplomacy stood up and left the lunch table at the moment
when glasses were being raised to the health of the
secretary of state.... 'Wrong!' Indignant, Herve de
Charette denounced the 'maneuver' and denied everything:
He was there and did not stand up. NATO also denied the
incident. Questioned, a State Department official
nevertheless asserted, yesterday, that the French minister
'was the only one who did not congratulate the secretary of
state.' The French and the Americans do not speak the same
language."
DENMARK: "France's Unrealistic Attempts To Act Like A
Superpower"
An op-ed piece by the French correspondent of center-right
Jyllands-Posten (12/16) criticized French foreign policy.
In particular, the newspaper expressed annoyance concerning
French attitudes toward the UN and NATO's Southern Command:
"Relations between the United States and France have
reached an all-time low since Jacques Chirac became
president.... When Christopher was in Africa recently, the
French Minister of Cooperation, Jacques Gofrain, criticized
the United States for interfering in a French sphere of
interest.... Frenchmen even allege that the United States
sank French plans to initiate a military/humanitarian
campaign in Zaire because the United States did not want to
create problems for the Tutsi revolutionaries.... The
French reacted violently to the American veto of Boutros-
Ghali. They tried to get a francophone African elected as
his successor, but the Americans won the battle.
Nonetheless, Chirac scored a few points with the Arabs at
the expense of the United States and Israel.
"Earlier this year the French forced their way into the
Middle East peace negotiations.... The French president
has reintroduced his country into the military section of
NATO. He did this to give the Alliance's military structure
a European element. This is the reason that he has demanded
that NATO's Southern Command should be given to a
Frenchman.... Through his ambitious foreign policy,
(Chirac) hopes to distract attention from France's many
economic and social problems. It would be a shame if
Western unity was destroyed by France's unrealistic
attempts to act like a superpower in competition with the
United States."
SPAIN: "Rebirth Of Conflict Among Allies"
J. Valenzuela wrote (12/12) for liberal El Pais from
Washington: "This confrontation between the United States
and France over Boutros Ghali's successor is the rebirth of
a 'conflict among allies.' Chirac has, once again, raised
the Gaullist banner of French and European autonomy
(against Washington) on a series of issues ranging from the
Middle East to NATO reform."
AFRICA
TOGO: "David And Goliath"
An inside-page commentary in La Depeche (12/16), a monthly
independent newspaper close to President Eyadema's Togolese
People's Rally, stressed, "From Bamako to Kigali,
Washington these days does not stop issuing warning signals
on her true intentions in Africa. In this battle between
David and Goliath, France is in a delicate position
because, after 30 years of cooperation between Paris and
francophone Africa, it is only misery and desolation.
Whose fault is it? Africans who refuse to assume their
responsibilities through work or a France, which like other
foreign forces, looks out for her own interests?"
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "Chirac's Unfulfilled Desire"
Marina Aizen, New York-based correspondent for leading
Clarin, wrote (12/14) regarding Annan's election at the
UN, "There were no substantial political reasons for the
battle between the United States and France, simply an
unfulfilled desire of Jacques Chirac's government to
prevent Washington from manipulating the fate of the UN
according to its own wishes."
##