I can’t help believing that it was the British decision to abolish and thereafter actively campaign against the slave trade that first introduced moral concepts into foreign policy.
Whether or not that is the case, it is the popular expectation that all foreign policy will be at least partly based on moral imperatives as opposed to the uncomfortably amoral calculations of national interest.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Europe where the various heads of state are forever delivering nauseatingly self-righteous lectures to the rest of the world from their bully pulpit in Brussels. Aside from switching off whenever I am so able I have also taken refuge in the suspicion that M’lady doth protesteth too loudly, a view which has been in some small sense vindicated by news of the French extending a hand of welcome to Robert Mugabe.
“France has confirmed that it is inviting Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe to take part in a summit of African Heads of State next month.
Mr Mugabe is currently banned from entering the European Union because of doubts about the legitimacy of his re-election last year.”
I suppose it would be bad form to have ‘doubts’ about his democidal marxist policies. And that is rather the point, for whilst I do not expect the enarques in Paris to rain down ‘Les JDAM’s du Francais’ on the former Rhodesia, it is nonetheless a reasonable expectation that the foreign policy decisions they make should reflect the ‘humanitarian’ principles they claim to live by.
Instead the French continue to do what the French have always done and pursue their own national interests in Africa under a cloak of Sartrean altruism:
“But French President Jacques Chirac was convinced that the Zimbabwean leader’s presence at the summit would help promote justice, human rights and democracy in his country, foreign ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau told journalists.”
When the language of ‘human rights’ can be employed with such spectacular mendacity in an attempt to mask a nefariously machiavellian agenda then we know that it is a coin which has become irredeemably debased.
But this move by the French tells us that the mask is beginning to slip and, whilst I daresay the language of Brussels (which is not synoymous with France but heavily influenced by it) will not change in the short term or even the medium term, the polite fictions which underpin that language are close to being unsustainable.
The ugly, old ogre of national interest is being prodded awake from its slumber and invoked to stalk the world again. To accompany it on its travels we will need not just a whole slew of new ideas but a whole new language in which to express them.
The French know that Mr. Mugabe has an intense hatred toward Great Britain.
So, this invitation to Mr. Mugabe- coming at the same time as French refusal to address the dictator of Iraq – is a direct slap at Britons.
I thought the French would be a little more subtle when enticing the UK to fully join the European Community.
Let us not forget too the ongoing French intervention in the Ivory Coast.
To be honest I don’t know enough about the details of the situation to comment on the situation one way or the other – but it does seem to be a bit hypocritical to bang on about the UN with respect to Iraq and then to send troops to take sides in a civil war in another country.
Watching a grossly one-sided BBC Question Time current affairs programme last night, I saw Tory MP Kenneth Clarke bellow that he has always “sided with the French in their position regarding Iraq”. The problem is that the French have proven to have been utterly inconsistent on this and many other issues.
It also suggests, among other things, that Clarke is unfit to lead the Conservative Party, but I guess most Samizdatans already know that.
I would like to post a comment that says nothing rude about French political culture.
I think I’ve managed it.
Axis of Weasels, the US blogosphere is having fun w/that.
David, Sandy,
Chalk up another shot by the US blogosphere at the Le Kermitoids:
The Evil That Was France
http://www.windsofchange.net/2003_01_19_woc.html#87981754
It’s only unilaterist intervention when the U.S.
does it.