| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| False friends -- France-led Europe re-arming China |
| 2005-01-01 |
| Chiraq: "a necessary rebalancing of the 'grand triangle' formed by America, Europe and Asia." During the recent presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry assailed President Bush for alienating key U.S. allies, evidence he maintained of the incumbent's lack of foreign policy acumen and an arena in which the challenger insisted he could "do better." Implicit in this critique was the belief that such allies — notably, the French — were anxious to be our friends, if they were not mistreated by America's leader. In fact, it is increasingly clear the French government under President Jacques Chirac is bent on policies antithetical to U.S. interests. They are not simply anti-Bush, they are anti-American and anti-Atlaniticist. The latest example is Mr. Chirac's determination to have French and other European weapons manufacturers arm Communist China as part of what he has called "a necessary rebalancing of the 'grand triangle' formed by America, Europe and Asia." France's unfriendly history: This is, of course, hardly the first time that French policy toward the United States has been defined by balance-of-power considerations. Indeed, the decisive assistance of France to the American Revolution did not reflect affection for those bent on ending royal misrule — a phenomenon its own king would be murderously subjected to soon after. Rather, the motivation was to weaken France's age-old rival, Britain, by helping to cut loose her American Colonies and sapping her wealth in a costly war to bring them to heel. Just a few years later, though, weakening the United States seemed in France's interest. France engaged in predatory acts against American shipping and backed subversion here at home, culminating in the so-called XYZ Affair that roiled Franco-American relations in this country's earliest days. In the 19th century, the French helped Southern secessionists and would have recognized their independent Confederacy had timely and decisive Union victories not made it clear which side would prevail. Nearly a hundred years later, President Charles de Gaulle repaid U.S. help in the liberation of France by cultivating close ties with the Soviet Union and expelling NATO headquarters from Paris. Jacques Chirac was no less troubled by notions of alliance solidarity when the French government reportedly assured Saddam Hussein it would oppose any U.N. authorization of the use of force against his regime. Seen against this backdrop, Mr. Chirac's calculation that Europe must strengthen China militarily at America's expense is not just a one-off betrayal of an ally. It is part of a geostrategic tradition that renders France, at best, an unreliable partner in international affairs and, at worst, what the French call a "faux ami," or false friend. Unfortunately, as this column has noted repeatedly in recent months, France is striving to impose its strain of anti-Americanism on other European states that have traditionally preferred the trans-Atlantic partnership to French or Franco-German domination of their Continent's affairs. The principal vehicle for enforcing the latter over unwilling states — notably, Great Britain and nations Don Rumsfeld has described as "New Europe" — is the new European Constitution. If this draft constitution is ratified by voters in Britain, France and a half-dozen other countries, the European Union will have authority to "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy." The U.S. can forget about "special relationships" and strong bilateral ties, let alone "coalitions of the willing," with states bound by such a compact. Thoughts from Rantburg's European correspondents would be valuable on this. Even before such an authority gets conferred upon unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris is working on a dress rehearsal: its bid to "rebalance" American power by augmenting that of Communist China. France and the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, are pushing hard for lifting an embargo on arms sales to Communist China imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre. All other things being equal, the French and Germans expect, with help from a double-dealing British government, to dispense by next spring with opposition to such a step from the Netherlands, New European states like Lithuania and the European Parliament. The implications of European weapons manufacturers joining Russia in arming China to the teeth are quite worrisome. Thoughtful observers, like acclaimed author Mark Helprin, warn of China's rising application of its immense accumulated wealth to strategic advantage. Details of China's recent moves: The latter include: neutralizing U.S. dominance in space and information technology (Chinese acquisition of IBM's personal computer division is not an accident); moving aggressively to dominate the world's critical minerals and other resources (especially those relevant to its burgeoning energy needs); establishing forward operations in choke-points and other sensitive areas around the globe (including, in our own hemisphere, in Cuba, the Bahamas, the Panama Canal, Brazil and Venezuela); and acquiring financial leverage by purchasing vast quantities of U.S. debt instruments. Retaking Taiwan is an immediate target of such power. Dominance of Asia and the Western Pacific are in prospect. And China aspires to exercise global superpower status in due course, if not short order. For years, Washington has paid lip service to — and often actively promoted — European unification. If, however, the upshot of unity is to be, as seems likely, a Continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere, the United States must make discouraging such developments an explicit part of its foreign policy. Mr. Chirac's determination to provide weapons that may be used to kill Americans in the event China decides to attack Taiwan should be a wake-up call. False friends are not allies. They should not be entitled to the preferential treatment accorded the latter. Mr. Bush is right that democracies traditionally don't fight democracies. But when they equip authoritarian regimes to do so, they must pay a real cost. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #19 And, for the fifteenth year running, Aristople AutoKraptcrisis goes on to win the Walter Duranty Apologist for Tyranny Award, which among other things, includes an all expense paid date with Jacques Chirap's lap ...at the alley of his (own, you know, individual choosing, etc |
| Posted by: an dalusian dog 2005-01-01 11:43:50 PM |
| #18 an analogy I read on Yahoo! News was that when offered the option to outsource cheap or have the work done in America for more cost to the consumer, 5 out of 6 customers chose outsourcing ... In the same way that no one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the average American buying public; Wal-Mart's popularity is stark testimony to the short-sightedness of American consumers. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 11:35:05 PM |
| #17 By the way, Zenster, an analogy I read on Yahoo! News was that when offered the option to outsource cheap or have the work done in America for more cost to the consumer, 5 out of 6 customers chose outsourcing ... |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-01-01 11:07:41 PM |
| #16 Well, Zenster, I'm doing my reading based on Wikipedia read-ups of "Chinese strategic thought," the "revolution in military affairs (RMA)" as perceived by both the US and China, "comprehensive national power (CNP)" and even the concept of "protracted people's war," Mao Zedong's own war doctrine. Call you all back in a few? :) (I want to argue from a pro-American perspective that also sees that the most effective changes Zenster suggests would actually be antithetical to the American raison d'etre.) |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-01-01 11:04:42 PM |
| #15 Walmart did not become the largest retailer around by selling a lot of goods manufactured in China - it is because Walmart is the largest retailer in the world that it sells a lot of goods assembled in China. While true, none of this should prevent American consumers from realizing that shopping at Wal-Mart is neither good for the United States' industrial base or it's national security. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 11:02:51 PM |
| #14 So, Aris, if the EU is not "France-led", why does Chirac come off as a spokesman for Europe? Won't accept the assumption, here, Tom. He may come off as a spokesman for Europe to *you*, he does not come off as a spokesman for Europe to me. He may even wish to present himself as a spokesman for Europe, but what do his wishes have to do with reality? What has your Greek leader (the name escapes me) had to say recently on these matters, Karamanlis is a political midget. I hardly know what he has to say on Greek matters as he rarely dares take a stand even on internal issues, so I somehow doubt he'll look beyond his nose to comment on EU-China relations. Certainly not to act with integrity anyway. If I had to guess a wild guess he'd be on the side of "good relations" with China, even like he pledged allegiance to Putin, even as the whole rest of Europe was seeing Putin revealed for what he was. and why does Chirac get all the press? That's like asking why do I know who the governor of California is but not who the governor of New Connecticut. Or for that matter why I know the name of the leaders of France, Germany, Italy and UK, but not the leaders of Slovenia, Slovakia, and Lithuania. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-01 10:59:24 PM |
| #13 Zen would have had Bush blockade China from ME oil. I'll request that you either provide a cite or a retraction, Tom. Intentionally misrepresenting another person's own position is something more often associated with trolls. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 10:59:22 PM |
| #12 At that point we can just nuke 'em and be done with a whole bunch of issues... Suggesting the use of nuclear weapons as a first resort against a European country takes a lot of the starch out of your insults, Tom. A complete and total lack of any constructive counter-argument is just icing on the cake. If you bothered to actually read my post, I said how we should curtail our trade with China so that their rampant oil purchasing would impact them a lot more seriously. As it is, we facilitate their explosive growth (pun intended) and are still obliged to stick around and clean up the mess in Iran. Why should we screw ourselves into having to do all the heavy lifting? Why not short circuit those imports with reconstituted internal manufacturing, force China to spend hard earned currency on their massive oil imports and set about leveling the ridiculously skewed trade imbalance? Do you have any non-nuclear suggestions as how we should change our trade deficit with China, Tom? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 10:52:37 PM |
| #11 Save your typing finger from osteoarthritis -- Zen would have had Bush blockade China from ME oil. WWIII. He's an idiot. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-01 10:50:15 PM |
| #10 Zenster: Yet no one here has the least problem with Bush's administration being asleep at the wheel while American importers funnel untold BILLIONS into China's gaping industrial maw. Can't be helped. Most of those imports are items that started being imported from China during the Clinton administration. PC components started being made in China during the early 90's, as Taiwanese and Korean subcontractors started dipping their toes in the water. China's industrial base is being strengthened not by domestic manufacturers, but foreign subcontractors. To ban imports from China might have meant initiating a trade war with all of our major trading partners. In the 1980's, Reagan wanted to impose sanctions on European companies that had anything to do with the building of the natural gas pipeline from the Soviet Union or with purchasing natural gas from that pipeline. Margaret Thatcher herself stood up against Reagan on that issue. People talk about how Walmart imports tens of billions of dollars of Chinese goods, as if most of those goods were made up of nail clippers or T-shirts. But the fact is that a significant chunk of it consists of American or third-country non-Chinese brands that are manufactured in China. Walmart had nothing to do with the fact that many of these things are made in China. The sheer magnitude of Walmart's purchases has nothing to do with Walmart choosing to buy Chinese-made goods over other goods. All the subcontractors are manufacturing in China and all of the major retailers are sourcing in China. Some are confusing cause and effect. Walmart did not become the largest retailer around by selling a lot of goods manufactured in China - it is because Walmart is the largest retailer in the world that it sells a lot of goods assembled in China. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-01-01 10:46:11 PM |
| #9 I see. So we should have blockaded oil sales to China and stopped all trade with China. Yeah, I guess that would have made things different. You're an idiot. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-01 10:29:58 PM |
| #8 Seriously, Zenster, what was the White House supposed to do differently in your opinion? Let's start with connecting the dots between China and North Korea. How about tracing another path over to America's enemy, Iran? The same Iran that we may have to spend untold millions upon when we bomb out their nuclear facilities. All being built with money from oil sales to China. That way the American people might be more disposed to boycott China's products themselves, even if the White House can't bear to wean itself from all those campaign contributions coming from importers of Chinese goods. Wouldn't it make more sense to rebuild America's industrial base and force China to pay more dearly for all that Iranian oil instead of facilitating proliferation to Iran that we will be obliged to finally interdict anyway? Another good move would have been not adopting the "One China" stance that has effectively given the politburo carte blanch to threaten Taiwan, as in the incredibly waffle-infested "status quo" White House speech prior to the Taiwanese elections. Finally, there is a definite need to begin leveling the playing field between China and the United States. How is it possible to continue with the $127 BILLION Sino-US trade deficit? This is economic poison (to both sides actually - just faster acting upon America) for US industrial capacity. It is precisely this vast imbalance in the flow of capital that is permitting China to procure their modernized weapons. Don't we owe it to ourselves to avert another arms race? Should we permit our internal production capacity to dwindle to the point where our nation cannot sustain itself in a time of war? We are rapidly approaching that point. There is a limit to the number of manufacturing jobs and various other careers that can be outsourced before we are left with a nation of burger-flippers. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 10:25:27 PM |
| #7 So, Aris, if the EU is not "France-led", why does Chirac come off as a spokesman for Europe? What has your Greek leader (the name escapes me) had to say recently on these matters, and why does Chirac get all the press? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-01 9:13:13 PM |
| #6 At that point we can just nuke 'em and be done with a whole bunch of issues... |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-01 9:05:42 PM |
| #5 We'll get the chance to arm both sides when civil war breaks out between the French and muslim immigrants. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-01-01 9:01:40 PM |
| #4 It's not about France arming China -- the Chinese are quite capable of arming themselves, and they can do it with or without our WalMart purchases. It's also not about Bush betraying anyone -- what is the perceived act of betrayal? Allowing trade? Seriously, Zenster, what was the White House supposed to do differently in your opinion? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-01 8:48:45 PM |
| #3 Yet no one here has the least problem with Bush's administration being asleep at the wheel while American importers funnel untold BILLIONS into China's gaping industrial maw. The money China is using to buy all these modern weapons isn't coming from their trade with Europe. Capiche? France, in their insignificance, is merely playing two sides against the middle, as they have for centuries. For America to fight the war on terrorism and simultaneously be China's biggest trading partner, as the politburo goes about proliferating weapons technology to both North Korea and Iran, is worse than stupid. Bush is simply betraying the American people in the name of commercialism. France's incredible stupidity only makes the White House's look all the worse. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-01-01 8:04:24 PM |
| #2 "define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy." These are the *exact same words* that appear in the existing treaties, so if this article is presenting them as new, this article is lying. The U.S. can forget about "special relationships" and strong bilateral ties, let alone "coalitions of the willing," with states bound by such a compact. AFAIK the European Constitution still retains the need for unanimous agreement on matters of common foreign and security policy, as is the case in the current treaties. So one wonders why should the relationship between the US and European states be any different after the Constitution than it is currently? On other matters, I'm annoyed at the false title. "France-led Europe rearming China" should atleast be followed by a question mark, as Europe is neither France-led, nor is it rearming China, indeed the opposite the EU structures (like the European Parliament) have stopped France from rearming China. That the EU's embargo has *prevented* double-dealing France, Germany, UK from rearming China is the real newsitem. "If, however, the upshot of unity is to be, as seems likely, a Continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere," Yeah, let's call black white and let's call day night, while we're at it. How about a "Thank you very much, EU, for preventing Chirac and Shroeder from rearming China?" instead? So much for gratitude. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-01 8:00:23 PM |
| #1 Interesting article. I hardly consider peddling commodity PCs as a source of competitive advantage. Clinton and Gore gave away more intelligence in one overnight at the White House than IBM is giving away with their PC loss leader. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2005-01-01 7:45:37 PM |