Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, has arrived in Paris to take part in a Franco-African summit despite European Union sanctions against him.
France obtained a waiver to allow Mugabe to enter Europe as sanctions were formally extended for a further year on Tuesday. Mugabe will be joinig around 45 other African heads of state, Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, as part of French attempts to forge closer ties with Africa.
His arrival has prompted protests from Britain and other EU countries and human rights groups are planning a series of protests during Mr Mugabe’s visit.
Given the company Jacques Chirac likes to keep, I would be deeply concerned to see him getting along with Tony Blair and George Bush.
Or perhaps it’s not personal. It is worse. Philip Delves Broughton’s excellent analysis of France’s hang-ups and downs shows a burning desire to emulate de Gaulle and restore France’s glory. Chirac’s years of political hackery and alleged expense fiddling and kickbacks as Paris mayor will be forgotten as the echoes of General de Gaulle are ringing louder and louder:
The Franco-African summit that convenes in Paris tomorrow has long been one of his favourite events. In years of diminished French influence, this bi-annual get-together of African leaders was a chance for French presidents to stand tall. But this week’s summit will be especially satisfying.
It will mark the triumphant conclusion of phase one of the Chirac Doctrine, a foreign policy that has enraged America and large parts of Europe, but delighted the French and made M Chirac popular beyond his dreams.
M Chirac ignored Britain’s objection to the invitation to the Zimbabwean leader because he believed far more was at stake than antagonising the Foreign Office or pleasing the Zimbabwean opposition. He sees France extending its reach into Southern Africa, once a British preserve. France believes it can bring peace to Congo, for which it needs Zimbabwean help, and expand its political and economic interests in the continent.
Despite the continuing unrest in the Ivory Coast, worsened by a recent French-brokered peace deal, M Chirac is confident France can display its full diplomatic plumage in Africa and demonstrate to Washington that it has a sphere of influence too.
He may even not be worried about missing a post-war carve-up of influence in Iraq. It just could be that France, he believes, is now the leader of the anti-American world and with that come dividends and responsibilities appropriate to the grand ministries of Paris and far exceeding those in one corner of the Middle East.
I hope the United States does not forget French crude attempts at the realpolitik game. I hope that the important players in the international arena will not let France usurp more influence that it deserves and make it face the consequences of its actions. Or is it too much to hope for?
What former French glory? People always talk about France’s longing to recapture its former gloire, but they’re never specific. What glory? As far as I can see, they’ve spent the last 1,000 years as poseurs conning the world into believing in this mythical former glory. Simple question to which I would be genuinely interested to read a response: At what period in history was France glorious?
At the peak of Napoleon’s Empire, France stood astride Europe like a colossus, directly dominating or strongly influancing all the continental powers from Spain to Russia for a few years. I think it is fair to say this is what they are talking about.
Similarly whatever we may think of contemporary France’s contribution to worldly weal or woe (mostly woe in my view), it is hard to deny that the French had had a huge historical influence over vast areas of western civilisation.
I shouldn’t worry too much about Chirac’s grand ambitions in Africa or elsewhere. There is frankly little ANY western nation can do at this point to create a stable “sphere of influence” at all worthy of the name. Look at Zimbabwe. A Commonwealth country, relatively prosperous, seemingly with a bright future, has been bankrupted and ruined in just a year or two. Stunning. Can Britain help? Can the US? No, because the country’s immediate neighbors bristle at any “colonial” interference. So Chirac sees an opportunity to pose for a few meaningless photos with a despot before the Eiffel Tower, sucking up to the near-despots and near-democrats in the rest of the continent. It will earn him nothing but the lasting animus of fellow westerners.
Some words of wisdom by that old realist Bismarck: (iirc)
‘Africa? Here is France, and here is Russia, and we are in the middle. THAT is my map of Africa.’
Chirac is living in fantasy land. He may pose as champion of the ‘third world’, and play diplomatic and political games to annoy the US and the UK. But alienating Washington, and London (I suspect Blair may see a veto on a second resolution as aimed directly at him), and numerous other European states will prove a serious mistake.
‘Trouble may be purchased cheaply, though the refund may be more than you can bear.’
Yes, Napoleon was unquestionably a significant figure in the history of Europe, despite having made the mistake of thinking marching an army on Moscow in the dead of a Russian winter was a sane idea, but that period was a tiny window in terms of history. A few years doesn’t make an age of grandeur and glory to be wistful about. Living in the past is a sign of senility. Every time I see a supercillious smirk arising on a French face, I remember that this is the nation that thinks Jerry Lewis is a comic genius.
According to allafrica.com, Zimbabwe has arrested an American diplomat for attending (fomenting?) a street protest.
Things are hotting up down there!
Philip the Fair to Louis XIV? Colbert? French Revolution? France has had a huge impact on not just Europe but the world. Code Napoleon has, for better or worse (mostly worse in my view), shaped the legal systems of far more countries than the US Constitution or English Common Law.
I am no Francophile (I am English after all) but the idea that France can just be dismissed as historically insignificant is not very sensible. The fact the French political class are detestable is no reason to airbrush out their huge historical contribution to the making of the modern world.
Wonder if he’s got my $20 million. Or was that some other African dictator?
I am not dismissing French history or France’s contribution to the world, although many of their contributions are typically showy: the French Revolution, the Statue of Liberty, Versailles. I don’t think they were anywhere near as important to world history as Britain (starting with the Industrial Revolution) and the United States, which truly does bestride the world in every sense. France today lags behind the Anglosphere in almost every aspect of life. (I know this doesn’t answer your argument, but I’m digging as hard as I can.) I think you may be wrong, though, about the Napoleonic Code applying in more countries (or rather, affecting more people) than Anglo-Saxon Common Law. India alone has a billion people.