THE RUSSIA JOURNAL :: Analysis || Articles Thank God for France Matt Taibbi
Seldom has an international political situation made it so easy for the nations of the world to see exactly where they stand with the United States. On the eve of a long-desired insane military adventure, the United States is facing nearly identical opposition from three key "allies": France, Germany and Russia. "Practically identical," in fact, is how President Vladimir Putin characterized the Iraq position of the three countries, all of which happen to sit on the U.N. Security Council.
But you wouldnít know that from reading American newspapers. In the past few days, the American media have erupted in a veritable volcano of pure, unadulterated hatred, and virtually all of it has been reserved for France. The vitriol currently being heaved Franceís way, in fact ñ itís even going on this very minute, as I write this here in my apartment, as Fox News spokesfascist Sean Hannity blasts the old country on my TV ñ is of a rare and spectacular variety. Short of a call for an actual invasion of France, it couldnít get any worse. Here is a brief sample of the treatment France is getting this week:
On Tuesday, the New York Post ran a cover story that featured stark pictures of white gravestones at Normandy, under the gigantic headline: "Sacrifice." The subhead? "They Died for France, but France Has Forgotten."
In the article inside, vituperative columnist Steve Dunleavy reveals: "I feel an unnatural glow of rage ñ I want to kick the collective butts of France." In a column entitled "Vote France Off the Island," the self-professed arch-priest of the New World Order, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, said he wished the Security Council was chosen by fan vote, like the N.B.A. all-star team, so that he could have a chance to "vote France off the Council and replace it with India." House Speaker Dennis Hastert has floated the idea of introducing a bill that would place import tariffs on French wine and mineral water, and would put "bright orange warning labels" (as he explained it gleefully) on French wines clarified with bovine blood. Hastertís comments were broadcast repeatedly on TV news programs and talk shows.
And how has Russia been treated? Thereís been scarcely a bad word for Russia in the major news media. Apart from a distantly unkind article by old friend Matthew Fisher in the Toronto Star (in which he compared Putinís maneuverings in Europe to Leninís Machiavellian foreign policy), Russiaís Iraq position has yet to become a major issue in the United States. Thatís partly because itís not yet clear exactly what position Putin will take. Indeed, many saw the White Houseís decision to include Chechen groups on its official list of terrorist organizations as a sign that a deal for Russiaís support had been struck. But even after Putin said that he would be inclined to go along with France or even "act alone" in using a veto to stop a premature invasion, the press left Putin alone.
There are a number of reasons for this, some obvious and some not so obvious.
One of the not-so-obvious reasons has to do with numbers. From a propaganda standpoint, it is probably not desirable, in this case, to demonize numerous political opponents. Not only would that strain the attention span of the American media consumer, intellectual giant though he is, but it would actually draw attention to the fact that there are many countries and, more importantly, many people opposing the war.
In a way, in fact, Franceís opposition to the war is actually a propaganda boon to the Bush administration. Despite the fact that recent surveys show that the people of virtually every nation except the United States overwhelmingly oppose a war without U.N. approval, the decision by France and Germany to threaten to use their Security Council vetoes has allowed the American media to create the illusion that opposition to the war is concentrated solely in the State Department offices of those countries.
Instead of hammering 71 percent of the world population for getting in the way, the media can focus on a single inviting target ñ France ñ and try to blast it, Death Star style, into a million pieces of space debris. Fortunately for Russians, Americans do not know them well enough to hate them the way they hate ñ and always have hated ñ the French.
Actually, itís inaccurate to say all Americans feel this way. Letís just say a certain segment of America hates and always has hated France, a segment that can generally be described as the conservative political establishment.
France drove Richard Nixon crazy, for instance: He equated it in his mind with the wine-and-cheese parties of the chic New York intellectual types who were a primary focus of his hatred and paranoia.
The conservative ruling class sees France as a den of queers and traitors who flee at the first sign of danger and go out of their way to maintain a refined, discriminating culture that stands as a permanent indictment of Middle American tastes. Fueling this antipathy even further is the sense Vulgar America undeniably has that, even if it wanted to win France over, it would still lack something, that proverbial je ne sais quoi, to make it happen.
If you can imagine Donald Rumsfeld secretly trying and failing to keep a souffle from falling, then you can understand where that surprising intensity comes from when Americans complain about France not being grateful enough to us for "saving their necks in double-ya double-ya two."
France is also a more convenient scapegoat than Germany and Russia for other reasons. Russiaís opposition to the war can be attacked as conniving, cynical, self-interested and even treacherous (given all the aid weíve sent its way in the last decade). Germanyís can be attacked on the grounds that it proves that country still has great-power ambitions. But when France opposes a war, you can call it cowardice, squeamishness and a disinclination to act decisively ñ not something you can say about traditional military super-aggressors such as Russia and Germany.
Dressed in a beret and Marcel Marceau makeup, opposition to the war makes a nice snack for media hawks such as Bill OíReilly. Russia, with its missile stocks and its tough-talking Napoleonic president, doesnít go down as well. It should be thankful it doesnít. [14 Feb 2003]