ABOVE: SYMBOLS OF EUROPE AND NATO
DIVERGENCE OR CONVERGENCE OF INTERESTS ? NATO & THE USA VERSUS FRANCE AND PRESIDENT SARKOZY
In this context of collective security, France is expected to proceed with a plan that would create a “common arms export policy” based on a proposal recently passed by the European Parliament and one which was spearheaded by France. Furthermore, President Sarkozy wants to harmonize military training in Europe, as well as to europeanize the foreign military bases of EU (European Union) member states while attempting to reintegrate into the military "command" structure of NATO and focus on high-tech weapons as France euthanizes (closes) a few military bases.
While France is a member of NATO and takes part in all political decision-making bodies and contributes financially to the Organization, it is not part of the integrated command structure. France's return to NATO command would involve the appointment of French generals to NATO military headquarters and to the alliance's defense planning committee. (1) Given France's history and French leaders' perception of "vital interests", prudence on the part of the U.S. diplomats would be advised. In the past, De Gaulle clashed with the U.S. over France's building of its own nuclear force ("La Force de frappe"), Britain's admission into the European Economic Community and the Algerian war. These and other tensions led to de Gaulle's decision in 1966 to withdraw French forces from the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to expel NATO from its headquarters at Fontainebleau. De Gaulle's foreign policy was centered on an attempt to limit the power and influence of two superpowers of those times (U.S and S.U.), which would increase France's international prestige in relative terms. De Gaulle hoped to move France from being a follower of the United States to a leading First World power with a large following among certain non aligned Third World developing countries. The nations de Gaulle considered potential participants in this grouping were those in France's traditional spheres of influence, Africa and the Mid East.
Sarkozy, a convinced Gaullist, has the same policy, even though his rhethoric is pro-American. And he is also a staunch pro "civil nuclear" proponent, which increases international risks as motivated third world nations can convert civil nuclear energy into military arms. Moreover, the polls show the majority of the French do not want to see Sarkozy as a Presidential candidate in 2012 and the Socialist will be much less "pro-American" (see reference ultra). Thus, the U.S needs to seriously think about what the French collectively want and how the U.S. and the international community's interests can be furthered without creating un-necessary major conflicts between the two countries.
In this perspective, for the United States (and other pro-NATO allies), Sarkozy’s ambitious military plans pose a dilemma. On the one hand, the Americans want the Europeans to assume more of the burden for transatlantic defense, including in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they want the Europeans to do this in a way that does not undermine NATO. (2)
Yet, most of Sarkozy’s proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources. (3)
For example, the 60,000-strong EU force would draw on the same troops that are currently committed to the 26 Nations who make up NATO. For such an EU force to be viable, troops would need to be on constant standby for EU missions. Considering that all EU countries are already stretched to the limit, Sarkozy’s plans would divert manpower away from the NATO mission in Afghanistan and from other potential regional conflict theaters. And nearly all observers agree that the future of the Atlantic Alliance hinges on success or failure in Afghanistan, notwithstanding other issues on which France and the USA are sensitive such as the Hezbolla rise in Lebanon and Hamas problem in Israel, the Iranian race to uranium and mass destruction weapons, Korean nuclear ambitions and the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
RUSSIAN OIL DEPENDENCY COULD WEAKEN THE EUROPEAN ATLANTIC CAMP
In addition to using precious national resources for additional military expenses, (4) Sarkozy’s military ambition (5) could be all the more dangerous for American and World Peace interests that Europe is slowly getting addicted to Russian “oil security”, (6) an element which could motivate Europe and France to become less Atlantic, more pro-Russian while feeding all the more a new arms race. (7)
CONFLICTING DISARMAMENT VISIONS WITH FRANCE
President Obama has made it clear that one of his first foreign policy objectives is to reduce the risks and threats of nuclear proliferation.
"...Lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes." (The President's Agenda)
Moreover, President Obama has stressed that better "arms control" ought to be accomplished collectively, that the U.S. will not disarm unilaterally.
"Show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. America will not disarm unilaterally".
THE NATURE OF INTER-STATE RIVALRY: SCIENCE TRAVELS FASTER THAN DIPLOMACY
"Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power." (The President's Agenda)
And we know what the historic nature of rival military political entities are. The feeding of military technology which increases “arms races” whose pace tends to be quicker than the diplomatic processes of peace making and disarmament conferences. (8)
Moreover, during international crises, when diplomacy fails, military capable States often use threats and military conflicts as compensatory and regulatory instruments to further their ambitions and delusions. “War is the continuation of politics by other means” used to say Clawswitz. Sometimes even national crises and personal delusion and-or ambition can trigger international conflicts. (9)
In this perspective, a U.S Ambassador to France who can deliver French speeches with the same “fougue” as Sarkozy (though with less experience and "panache") would be all the more an asset to American diplomacy and President Obama’s agenda that he could communicate directly to the People to let them know that the Obama and NATO agenda is to encourage more international peace collaboration among States than international rivalry, arms and nuclear proliferation.
TRADE WARS, RECESSION, COLLECTIVE INSECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Moreover, there remains the protectionist temptation to increase visible and invisible trade barriers and government subsidies, which would undermine world economy and encourage States to retaliate with similar measures. Measures whose effects would be to depress the economy even more, and push American and French unemployment to new highs. During Hitler's war, military conflict preparation and the actual labor and capital intensive economy that was subsequently produced were the two structural conditions which jump started the economic machine.
Because there is a consensus that Ricardo's theory on the international division of labor and trade economy fuels growth world-wide, it may be useful for the U.S President, by virtue of Article 6 of the Constitution and practice, to overrule Congressional protectionist measures, as this would violate international agreements and worsen economic recovery.
This is why it makes sense for the Government to invest in sustainability. One the one hand, eco-settlements can act like shock absorbers and safety nets for the satisfaction of basic needs. And on the other hand, the Government can continue participating in world development via the "business as usual" mantra. Thus avoiding Franco-American and general conflict.
THE FRENCH "CIVIL NUCLEAR" ENERGY EXPORTATION AND PROLIFERATION POLICY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH THE UNITED STATES' SECURITY INTERESTS
President Sarkozy insists on spreading civil nuclear energy in the international community based on his idea of "sustainability" (alleging this energy is clean and sustainable) and justifying this action on the basis of international law (pillar three of the NPT), while not respecting the pillar on nuclear disarmament. He is fervently supporting the Areva firm who is aggressively promoting nuclear power expansion despite the risks and the relative ineffectiveness of this energy source to combat climate change. This policy may conflict with American national interest as there are inherent security risks in this policy given the technological ease with which this technology can be converted to nuclear weapons, notably by desperate countries and-or frustrated and-or zelous ones like Lybia, North Korea, and Iran, all of which have violated international law and the non proliferation treaty (NTP) in order to develop nuclear energy and a nuclear weapons program.
The risks concern nationalist, overly ambitious and irresponsible leaders who can buy the "know-how" and the nuclear components from low-income nuclear engineers in Russia, East Europe, Pakistan and elsewhere. Or figure out the nuclear weapons technology from the internet and published studies as has done Pakistani students. Motivated groups like Bin Laden's organization can eventually assemble small nuclear and other massive destruction weapons.
Hereinafter the evidence on Mr Sarkozy's civil nuclear marketing strategy, which generates billions of euro cash flow and gives his country some prestige glow from nuclear intent countries.
1. Franco-India joint statement: From New Delhi, january 25, 2008.
"Both sides recognise that as a reliable source of sustainable and non-polluting energy, it (nuclear energy) could make a significant contribution to meeting the global challenge of achieving energy security, sustainable development, economic growth and limiting climate change," the statement said.
2. Franco-Venezualian nuclear collaboration (october 2008).
" PARIS: France is willing to help Venezuela develop a civilian nuclear-power program, the foreign ministers of both countries said Thursday.French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also said France would like to use Venezuela — a staunch critic of the United States — as a go-between with Iran in discussions about the Middle Eastern nation's disputed nuclear program, but that Iranian officials have so far proved unreceptive to the approach".
France has recently signed accords for cooperation on civilian nuclear technology with a host of nations including India and such Muslim nations as Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
"a political mistake" to refuse emerging economies access to (...) "civil nuclear rights." (...) "Step by step, by respecting all the security rules, we would like to bring developing nations toward mastery of these technologies," Fillon added. "It is a very important political trend." (...) In recent months, France has signed nuclear cooperation deals with Algeria, Libya and the United Arab Emirates. "If we are unable to find—thanks to science—a means to bring to these inhabitants the energy they need to develop, then we will be forced to prepare for very gloomy days," Fillon warned. (See the French news agency AFP April 12, 2008)
According to the Internation Herald Tribine (July 13 2008) and Greenpeace, President Nicolas Sarkozy "has done everything he could to sell nuclear energy, said Frederic Marillier of the French section of Greenpeace in a statement." At the U.N., as head of the European council, or just recently at the G8, he has behaved like a travelling salesman for Areva and has used political platforms to promote French nuclear power," Marillier said, referring to the French nuclear energy producer Areva.Sarkozy was hosting over 40 heads of state and government in Paris on Sunday for a summit on the partnership between the European Union and countries from the Mediterranean region".
The dangerous spread of civil nuclear energy and the nuclear weapons proliferation
As of 2007, 13 (known) states have a nuclear enrichment capability. Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal "pacing element" for a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology. (10)
From the international law standpoint, countries possessing ENR capabilities have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program. Once these countries have the nuclear technology, thanks to their accession to the TNP agreement, all they have to do to get out of the binding TNP "non military use of nuclear energy" constraints is to declare "extraordinary circumstances", and-or a "war like situation", as has North Korea. And give a 90 days warning. Some countries could emulate the two-pronged French nuclear strategy of the Mandès-France and De Gaulle years. First, legally promise not to convert civil nuclear energy to military. Second, entertain political instability, crises and "vital interests" so as to justify "extraordinary circumstances" and the conversion from civil nuclear energy to nuclear military weapons.
The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the NP Treaty. Countries like Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; so was North Korea, this country never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations. And later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device. Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program. And Lybia pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before allegedly abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.(IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement).
The "civil nuclear to nuclear weapon conversion" risk is compounded by earthquake accidents and terrorist dangers In Japan, the Rokkasho plant is a big threat because a major quake in the region could trigger an enourmous amount of radioation leak that can also affect the global environment. And in France, a commercial airliner targeting one of France's 59 nuclear reactor (soon 60, with a new second generation reactor, one of which has recently leaked) would provoke a major catastrophe for the world. Nuclear engineering consultancy Large & Associates, in a Greenpeace commissioned study concluded that a French based EDF document included seriously flawed assumptions about whether the reactor could withstand a potential terrorist attack using hijacked commercial aircraft.
PATTERNS IN FRANCO-AMERICAN HISTORY
An analysis of the diplomatic history of France and the United States suggests that the relationship with France will not be without conflicts. What the French call "constantes" are factors that seldom change in France's national interest. A brief history of the last 50 years will confirm recurrent issues, not least of which was the misperceptions of the Roosevelt Administration during Hitler's war, when the foreign policy team of then rejected De Gaulle and accepted the fascist regime of Vichy. After the war, when Charles de Gaulle became president he clashed again with the U.S. over France's building of its own nuclear weapons (see: Force de frappe) and Britain's admission into the European Economic Community. These and other tensions led to de Gaulle's decision in 1966 to withdraw French forces from the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and to expel NATO from its headquarters at Fontainebleau. De Gaulle's foreign policy was centered on an attempt to limit the power and influence of both superpowers, which would increase France's international prestige in relative terms. De Gaulle hoped to move France from being a follower of the United States to a leading First World power with a large following among certain non-aligned Third World countries. The nations de Gaulle considered potential participants in this grouping were those in France's traditional spheres of influence: Africa and the Middle East (...) Relations improved somewhat under de Gaulle's successors, but tensions reappeared intermittently. France, more strongly than any other nation, has seen the European Union as a method of counter-balancing American power, and thus works towards such ends as having the Euro challenge the preeminent position of the United States dollar in global trade and developing a European defense initiative as an alternative to NATO. Overall, the U.S. has much closer relations with the other large European powers, Great Britain and Germany. In the 1980s the two nations cooperated on some international matters but disagreed sharply on others, such as Operation El Dorado Canyon and the desirability of a reunified GermanyInterior Minister Charles Pasqua expelled in 1995 CIA agents from France, on charges of economic espionage. France, along with other nations as Germany, Belgium, China and Russia, opposed the proposed new UN resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 11, 2003. French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin emerged as a prominent critic of the George W. Bush administration's policies pertaining to Iraq. Despite the recurring rifts, the often ambivalent relationship remained formally intact. A few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Jacques Chirac ordered the French secret services to collaborate tightly with US intelligence, and created Alliance Base in Paris, a joint-intelligence service centre charged of enacting the Bush administration's "War on Terrorism". Public attempts to boycott French goods in retaliation for perceived French "active hostility toward America"ultimately fizzled out having had little impact. The Iraq war, the attempted American boycott of French products, as well as the anti-French campaigns waged by some American commentators and politicians resulted in increased suspicion against the United States in the French population. Similar suspicions were felt in the United States toward the population and government of France: as of 2006, only one American in six considered France an ally of the United States. Recently, relations between the two nations have begun to normalize. A Pew Global Attitudes survey in June 2006 revealed that 52% of Americans had a positive view of France, up from 46% in 2005. Other reports indicate Americans are moving not so much toward favorable views of France as toward ambivalence, and that views toward France have stabilized roughly on par with views toward Russia and China. (Most of this information comes from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia).
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
The State Department's mission statement is to:
"Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."
In this perspective, President Sarkozy’s defense ambitions and nuclear exportation policies may threaten international stability, if only because civil nuclear stations in less developed countries have been known to facilitate the production of weapons of mass destruction. (11)
Given the stakes, the next U.S. Ambassador to France ought to be well acquainted with the workings of Europe and its defense system.
In Franco-American diplomatic relations, Europe is more and more relevant as the recent Lisbon Treaty established a legally new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State. (12)
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MAY NEED TO BETTER ANTICIPATE THE "APRÈS" SARKOZY CHESSBOARD
Dealing with France therefore means not only greater involvement with Europe, but also a better understanding of what the French People really want, as it is not unlikely that Sarkozy will be replaced as President during the next presidential elections with a more leftist and less Atlantic Government. (13)
Indeed, after less than two years of Presidential Governance, there are already recurrent indicators that Sarkozy’s government will not withstand the passage of time, nor the test of progressive History. Last April 8th, the French Government faced a vote of no confidence, as Socialists accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande (Segolène Royale’s former partner) said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
One should never underestimate the soveign will of the French Nation. As it is, by French constitutional law, the French People who are sovereign. The Sarkozy Government claims that its decisions are carried out in the name and for the benefit of the People, “le Peuple”. But in some aspects of French public policy, this assessment may have been determined too rapidly. The Fifth Constitution organically incorporates France's Fourth Constitution which provides that the Law of Nations (public international law) takes precedence over French national law. Thus, Peace making is more important that Napoléonic-style military ambitions. (In the French press, Sarkozy has often been compared to Napoléon). And the U.S diplomats, in particular a French born and cultured U.S. ambassador to France could courteously remind the French Government and the French People of these "peace keeping and building" responsibilities under international law, if only because public opinion polls show that President Sarkozy is losing the media image contest and the next French President in 2012 will most likely be someone else. A recent poll shows that 55 percent of the French do not want Nicolas Sarkozy to even be a presidential candidate in 2012.
In the sphere of “vital security interests”, a detailed analysis of Franco-American History will make evident a conflictual process pattern between the two States, not only because of divergences of objective interests as rival States, but also and especially because of divergences of perceptions between leaders of different Nations. In the spicy History of Franco-American diplomatic relations, it is well known that the leaders of these countries have often misjudged the other, from Roosevelt's pro Vichy support (the French German collaborationist government during Hitler's war) and Bush's "french fries" attack to De Gaulle's anti-Americanism in Québec and elsewhere (14)
Be that as it may, one of the first assessments American intelligence and the U.S foreign policy team need to ascertain is the degree to which President Sarkozy's military independence schemes and civil nuclear ambitions are threatening to U.S interests and world peace. If confirmed that there is a Sarkozy threat, the U.S. ambassador to France would need to find courtious, but strong arguments the French Nation would understand to persuade the Sarkozy government to participate more effectively in certain regional conflicts like in Afghanistan while ceasing to prepare schemes to duplicate NATO and spreading civil nuclear technology in Europe and the world. With Russian and East European nuclear experts being both low income and available, determined Nations and groups (like Bin Laden's organization) can find the means by which to convert civil nuclear technology into nuclear weapons.
This is also why President Obama's intentions of massively favoring the production of alternative energies is perfect, as green affordable technology could be exported to France to encourage that Nation's People to pressure the Sarkozy Government and the ENA (Ecole Nationale d'Administration) bureaucrats and French nuclear technocrats to reduce France's huge civil nuclear park and its exportation policies.
Be that as it may, French American diplomatic relations are nonetheless special and unique. These relations remain a pivotal key to any progress in the International Community and in the law of Nations. Without the French enlightenment and the human rights era (enshrined in the work and efforts of Diderot, Condorcet, Grégoire, (15) Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Tocqueville and others), today’s political freedom and Democracy in America would have been less secured. In this realm, different studies show that of all political philosophers from Europe, Montesquieu is the one who is the most quoted by our past law makers and constitutionalists. Similarly, without Rochambeau’s fleet, the King’s money and Lafayette’s military expertise, Yorktown would never have been a victory, the American Virginian farmer-rebels would not have been able to conquer their Independence when they did. In a similar manner, without the help of the United States, both in terms of values, technology and military might (World Wars One and Two), France could have been destroyed as a sovereign State. (16)
For Christian, there is the conviction that Joubert at the helm of the U.S. Ambassadorship to France would be an asset for the Obama Administration, if only because of his French culture and good manners.
"In addition, his courtesy, good education and his iron will to serve make his employment very agreeable" Roger Archeriteguy. Editor in chief of the Paper Sud Ouest, Bordeaux.
With the approval of the President and the Secretary of State, and in constant partnership with the Diplomatic Team Madame Hillary Clinton rightly underlines, I would use my energy to contribute in consenus projects between the two Nations, and there are many, (17).
Given France's world present, the U.S ambassadorship diplomatic position could also be a platform from which world peace, American national interests, Franco-American friendship, cultural exchanges and Europe would significantly improve.
FOOTNOTES
(1). François Heisbourg, a military expert and special adviser to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Paris predicted France would actually rejoin by the time of a Franco-German summit in March next year (Heisbourg had helped draft Sarkozy's military plan). While France is a member of NATO and takes part in all political decision-making bodies and contributes financially to the Organization, it is not part of the integrated command structure. A return to NATO command would involve the appointment of French generals to NATO military headquarters and to the alliance's defense planning committee.
(2). "US Relationship with France - France and United States Relations". Retrieved on 2008-12-1
(3). And Sarkozy has already made it clear that the centerpiece of his ambitious agenda will be the full development of an autonomous European Security and Defense Policy. This trend is nothing new. Inspired by Napoléon, triggered by De Gaulle, continued by Chirac, Sarkozy is befriending the US in order to achieve greater independence via an independent military force. For a historical analysis of this issue, please see www.diploweb.com and Défense natinale et sécurité collective, November 2008, pp. 17-21.
(4). Albeit some announced military budget reduction. Sarkozy said terrorism was the biggest threat to French security, and he pledged to create a leaner, more mobile and better-equipped army. He called for a doubling of the intelligence budget for new satellites, drones and other surveillance equipment, but plans to offset that by trimming the army, navy and air force from 271,000 troops to 224,000, with the army alone set for a 24% cut in personnel.
(5). In France, he is often compared to Napoléon, not only because of his short height, but also beca0use of his temperament and ambitions.
(6). Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) could give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security. Last March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia.
(7). This is another reason why the next U.S Ambassador to France should be well versed on alternative and complementary energies and global warming reduction strategies. American influence could here too make a difference, given French enthusiasm with President Obama’s election and their receptivity to non polluting energies
(8). Under the direction of Pierre Lellouche, of IFRI (Institut Français des relations internationals), a group of French experts had studied this question in the 90s and concluded that Science travels faster than Diplomacy.
(9). An example of war via delusion is Hitler’s war, an illustration of war via ambition, Alexander the Great’s wars and wars for internal control, the Roman wars.
(10). See wikipedia's encyclopedia for confirmation.
(11). Once Western-educated Third World scientists have mastered civil nuclear fission energy technology, once the material and equipment are in place, nothing stops a motivated leader to secretly develop military nuclear research and weapons, even if it means violating the non proliferation Treaty.
(12). The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community" (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be a new entity. The new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.
(13). Most of the peoples of Europe do not want a highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Europe have agreed among themselves to refuse to have referendums on the renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.
(14) Please see A short history of Franco-US discord Le Monde diplomatique, English edition March 2003.
(16) See also: U.S.-France Relations (1763–Present) Council on Foreign Relations.
(17). In particular, French leadership sees with a reassuring eye the following Obama foreign policy statement: " Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis - more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. They will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold accountable the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq" .
DISCLAIMER
All information contained in this site are pedagogical and political in nature, not intended to give any technical, medical or legal advice. Some of the links provided are for convenience, they do not constitute a formal endorsement. The "Citizens to elect Christian Pierre Joubert campaign committee" bears no responsibility for the accuracy, the legality or the content of the external sites or for those subsequent links the committee may invoke for informational and political purposes only.
2008 Copyright by the Citizens to elect Christian Pierre Joubert campaign committee