Michael J. Totten: French Foreign Policy is Over

May 03, 2007

French Foreign Policy is Over

I missed this last week when it was published. You probably did, too, so read it now. (Thanks to Tony Badran.)

Posted by Michael J. Totten at May 3, 2007 01:27 PM

Comments

Yes, and it's high time their foreign policy changed.

Merci beaucoup!

Posted by: Susan at May 3, 2007 03:00 PM

Are we taking politician's campaign promises seriously?

"If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."

George Dubya, during the first Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

Posted by: alphie at May 3, 2007 04:23 PM

It's about time. Not sure what they were trying to achieve (apart from getting access to oil, perhaps) but trying to build an alternative power base to America by consorting with dictators is hardly a good look.

Posted by: Markk at May 3, 2007 04:35 PM

All the indications were that Bush leaned towards isolationism, until September 11 of course. The greatest 180 degree turn in history?

Posted by: Markk at May 3, 2007 04:39 PM

I didn't mean to hijack this thread for yet another Bush bashing fest, Mark. I was just rereading the debate transcript and that struck me as the oddest line.

Politicians say things to get votes.

Politicians do things to get money.

No doubt there are some powerful financial interests behind France's foreign policy that will squash any radical changes.

That's how democracy works.

Posted by: alphie at May 3, 2007 05:07 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178096597106&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

For a more recent (5/3/07) update.

(Sorry - I forget how to make links)

From Sarkozy's camp, an interesting and refreshing bit of realism: "They [Palestinians] do not want a state at the moment. If they do become a state, they will have to borrow incredible amounts of money, and will not receive aid the way they do now. Right now, they're focused on destroying the State of Israel,"

Posted by: Pam at May 3, 2007 08:45 PM

Offtopic comment

Michael, this comment is offtopic to this French issue (which seems a really great news) but is highly ontopic to your reports from Iraqi Kurdistan.

A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.

...

Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.

...

An Amnesty International spokesman in London said they receive frequent reports of honour crimes from Iraq – particularly in the predominantly Kurdish north.

...

Kurdish authorities have introduced reforms outlawing honour killings, but have failed to investigate them or prosecute suspects, added the Amnesty spokesman.

W*A*R*N*I*N*G Graphic pictures

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811&ct=5

(hattip: eursoc.com)

Michael, I really appreciate your reportings from the Middle East and especially from the Kurdish territories of Iraq. Any plans to do to a followup to these honor killings? It would be great to know both sides of the coin.

Thanks for your really great work, Vilmos

Posted by: Vilmos at May 3, 2007 10:48 PM

Vilmos, I don't have any independent information about that case. It's horrible. That kind of thing happens everywhere in the Middle East even -- as this story shows -- among people who are not Muslims.

In some places (Lebanon for instance) it happens rarely. In other places (like Jordan) it is frightfully common.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 3, 2007 10:58 PM

The Druze do it in Israel now and then, but they have taken some steps in their communities to prevent it -- Israeli Arabs and occasionally Bedouin do it but at least Israeli authorities (if they can get a witness to testify, and she survives long enough to do so) prosecute it as pure murder.

I read it's the fastest rising crime in Jordan. Of course in Pakistan, 'irb rape' to put uppity women in their place is probably even more common, but irb murders are incredibly common. I hear it's common in Muslim areas of India, too. Muslims mainly commit these irb killings,(there's no honor involved, it's all about male ego and control, period), and it has followed Islam's expansion, but it's a tribal cultural thing.

It's pure terrorism. Any nation and any culture that tolerates it is, in my book, not civilized, no matter how many of the trappings they put on.

It appalls me how Westerners -- Liberals especially, but right wingers too -- really ignore this, often vaguely referring to cultural relativism, 'they're 400 years behind us, give them time...' and they defend Islam as a religion of peace when in every Islamic nation I am aware of, irb murder is tolerated, and often ignored. And the UN sits with a thumb up its butt as always.

Posted by: Pam at May 3, 2007 11:24 PM

Cultural relatavism, Pam?

One third of woman homicide victims in America are offed by their husband or boyfriend.

Think the U.N. should do something about that?

Posted by: alphie at May 3, 2007 11:47 PM

Aphie...The difference is that in America honor killings are without honor. Hello, prison inmate.

Posted by: JAS at May 4, 2007 12:30 AM

Also, Alphie -- most importantly since you brought up the UN -- murders are prosecuted in the United States. These kind of murders usually are not prosecuted in the Middle East.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 12:35 AM

Rather cold comfort for the the female victims, don't you think, Michael?

Which is a better measure of civilization, the number of woman murdered or the effort expended prosecuting killers?

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 12:48 AM

What is your point, Alphie. That the Middle East is more civilized than America and that the UN should be involved here and not there over the murder of women?

Be serious, or at least be clear about what you're getting at.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 01:12 AM

One third of woman homicide victims in America are offed by their husband or boyfriend.

I call troll.

It is difficult to imagine how ignorant someone would have to be to not know that 'she brought shame to the family, so I killed her' is not acceptable behavior in the US. Doing such a thing will result in the perpetrator being sent to prison, possibly death row.

Compare and contrast with what goes on in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan...

The honor-killers are getting somewhat more intelligent about it, though. They realize that honor-killing is a criminal act in western countries, so they usually send the girl back to the old country "to get married".... and nobody ever hears from her again.

Posted by: rosignol at May 4, 2007 01:29 AM

Alphie: Rather cold comfort for the the female victims, don't you think, Michael?

How do you think living American women would feel if it were legal and socially acceptable to kill them?

I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Because what you're suggesting is completely ridiculous on its face, or you seriously need to clarify yourself.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 01:37 AM

Why is it trolling, rosignol?

Imagine two towns with equal populations.

In one town, 100 females are murdered each year, and all their killers are sent to jail.

In the other town, 10 females are murdered each year, and all their killers get away.

If you were a woman, which town would you rather live in?

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 01:43 AM

Alphie: In the other town, 10 females are murdered each year, and all their killers get away.

What you should have said is the 10 murders were legal and socially acceptable.

I would rather live where it's not okay to kill me. Life for women is terrible in places where it's okay to kill them whether they are actually murdered at some point or not.

Would you rather live as a women in New York or a woman in Kabul?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 01:56 AM

We're talking about 5000 murders worldwide each year, Michael.

Even if you assume all of the victims of honor killings are Muslim women (they're not), that would work out to around 1 honor killing per 150,000 Muslim women each year.

In the United States, about 1500 women are murdered each year by a family member or boyfriend, which works out to about 1 in 100,000 American woman are killed each year by a family member or boyfriend.

The number of honor killings suggests that the practice is not condoned ny Muslim society as a whole, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's not legal in American-occupied Kabul, either.

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 02:14 AM

Back on topic.....

Part of me is optimistic about the prospect of France under Sarkozy, or even Royal, but the other part remembers that becoming chummy with the US would be utterly unpopular with the general French populace. So I'm waiting to see the flying pigs.

Posted by: jonorose at May 4, 2007 02:24 AM

You've got it backwards jonorose, the French populace at large is not particularly anti-American, arguably less so than the German or English in fact. It's mostly just the French elites who are anti-American. Sarkozy realizes anti-Americanism doesn't play that well and he's been using his pro-American credentials to his advantage.

Posted by: vanya at May 4, 2007 03:17 AM

Alphie;

In the other town, 10 females are murdered each year, and all their killers get away.
If you were a woman, which town would you rather live in?

If I were a woman in this town, it tells me I'd better submit to social norms for females or face execution. It also tells me men's lives have higher value.

Posted by: Toady at May 4, 2007 06:34 AM

Alphie, if I am threatened by a boyfriend or husband, I can seek protection from my family, the police, and I will be protected as an innocent victim of a crime. If I am killed, people will mourn, effort will be expended to get justice. As a woman currently alive, that DOES matter to me. As a man who has no idea what he's talking about, it may not matter to you.

If I live in the West Bank or Pakistan, my parents and my brothers will be the ones who hunt me down and strangle me or stone me or shoot me, and no one in the family or the town will try to help me. No police will try to intervene. My killers will be protected by my neighbors and kin, and even celebrated as having done a good thing. The town council and local pastor will not defend and praise my family. The Senate will not routinely defeat bills trying to outlaw such murders claiming that it is necessary to the fabric of civilization that independence in women be eliminated.

The rate of violence against women everywhere is much too high -- but whereas there are hundreds of thousands of frightened potential victims in the west, there are tens of millions of ME women who by custom, religion, and often law, are denied any options in life or any freedoms, even as small as having a cup of coffee with a male neighbor.

Posted by: Pam at May 4, 2007 06:58 AM

Highly doubtful. The president does not make or carry out foreign policy. That has been in the hands of the member of the Foreign Ministry. Regardless of what the president, prime minister, foreign minister thinks, the Foreign Ministry will continue its sacred duty of selling out to the Arab interest. After all, they've been doing that since before the 5th Republic, why would they be changing now, just because they have a new president?

Posted by: BigFire at May 4, 2007 08:15 AM

Alphie, would you rather be a safe slave or a slightly unsafe free person?

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 09:31 AM

"Rather cold comfort for the the female victims, don't you think, Michael?

[...] "

Is the author of this tripe that 'Hezbo-lover' kid that used to frequent your commentary section in the recent past? Has that thought occured to anyone else?

Posted by: anuts at May 4, 2007 10:56 AM

By the way Mr. Totten:

"Cha-ching!"

For your fine journalism services present and past. Upward and onward in future endeavors.

anuts

Posted by: anuts at May 4, 2007 11:06 AM

They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years - following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle - has allied the country with Arab dictators such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

That's not quite accurate. True, de Gaulle shifted, after the Six-Day War, from supporting Israel to supporting the Arab states. But Chirac was state secretary of social affairs at the time. Thus the idea to allow massive immigration of Arabs into France seems to have been his or met with his enthusiastic approval, along with the educational and social programs that encouraged it, specifically the Euro-Arab Dialogue which poisoned education and social policy throughout Europe.

Kissinger recounts that the thrust of the Pompidou-Chirac policy was not to encourage the moderates, but to support the radicals. Because the moderates were already in America's camp, so if France wanted to be influential on the world stage, they could only do so by supporting the radicals.

In short, in my opinion Chirac is the one person most responsible for the infiltration of Islamic terrorism into the West! It's good to see him going, but it might have been better had he never been on the scene in the first place.

Posted by: Solomon2 at May 4, 2007 11:41 AM

The effects of poverty and ignorance are universal.

So too is the ability to not see them in your own neighborhood.

Perhaps it's a defense mechanism.

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 12:46 PM

The effects of progress and intelligence are universal, as well.

So too is the ability to not see them in your neighborhood.

Perhaps it's a defense mechanism.

Half empty, half full. Youse takes your picks.

Posted by: allan at May 4, 2007 01:28 PM

Like here, allan?

http://www.burjdubai.com/

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 01:45 PM

Alphie, here's the thing -- you are equating a Western crime rate against ME national policy and law -- and somehow, you are tarring the West as the bad guy, and excusing the ME.

Is this like an error in Baseball? If you don't TRY, and don't actually touch the ball, it can't be called an error? It's only if you make an attempt and it is unsuccessful that you get dinged?

Where'd you get the '5000' number, btw? Some reports put the attempted Irb killings in Pakistan alone at 2000-3000 a year -- a great many fail, leaving the victims severely maimed. And it's not like ME husbands don't beat and kill their wives -- one report said for each reported case, there are many more murders not described in those terms, esp if the husband was the perpetrator.

I did find a mention, MJT, that in Turkey, where it is illegal, the highest rate of reputed killings is in the Kurdish area. That info comes from the Turks, though. Certainly your photos of men and women at the athletic club suggests otherwise in Iraqi Kurdistan, but how exceptional was that.

Where's Shvan with his Kurdish perspective on this, I wonder?

Posted by: Pam at May 4, 2007 03:37 PM

Pam,

The countries with the highest rates of murder and rape are Christian nations like Mexico, South Africa, Columbia and Jamaica.

Only someone with a political or religious axe to grind would blame Christianity for these crimes, though.

I don't doubt the poorer regions of the middle east are bad places to live, but when I see people who spend their days searching for crimes committed by Muslims and then using them to smear all Muslims, I have to wonder what their game is.

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 03:55 PM

"The countries with the highest rates of murder and rape are Christian nations like Mexico, South Africa, Columbia and Jamaica."-alphie

That makes sense, actually. Given that standards are somewhat different it's absolute that this irb or 'honor' (as if) killings crap is only accepted, shall we say...'elsewhere'. Therefore, these statistics are not as likely to be categorized as murder.

We (the civilized world) prefer our standards.

Posted by: anuts at May 4, 2007 04:56 PM

Alphie: quote your source. Even if you are starting from the position that these irb killings are not murder (and so don't count in the murder rate), it's hard to see where your numbers come from.

Posted by: wj at May 4, 2007 04:56 PM

Of course they're murder, wj.

What did I write that gave you the impression I didn't think they were?

I did say that it probably makes little difference to a murder victim why, exactly, they were killed.

Posted by: alphie at May 4, 2007 06:01 PM

Actually, I believe the highest rate of rape in the world is South Africa. Also a sickening rate of child rape. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_24_tue_02.shtml

btw, 8 of the ten lowest murder rate countries are Judeo-Christian, too. And the numbers used by WHO, which I believe is where alphie got his list, do not even consider several large countries with poor records-keeping or reporting, like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, or any African nations. http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Ahhh... ummmm... do we just mean 1:1 killings here, btw, alphie, or can we include suicide bombers who take out as many civilians as possible? Because I think the ME has cornered that niche statistic.

See we have a dilemma -- if you report rape in a Sharia-governed nation -- let's try to split the Islamic governance system from the spiritual faith, just to address alphie's need for pc -- if a woman reports rape in such a country, she has to have four men of impeccable character to support her claim, and they have to witness the actual penetration. That's Sharia.

Otherwise, in countries like Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia -- she is the one likely to be charged with a crime -- and that is the crime of fornication. And that, curiously enough, makes her dishonorable to her family and clan. Therefore, she (remember, we're talking a rape victim) is the one subject to imprisonment, flogging, and ultimately to -- you guessed it -- potential 'honor' killing. Cleanses the community palate, so to speak.

Rather a stunning disincentive to report rape, it seems to me.

Irb is based on the tribal idea that women, who were primarily useful as breeding stock, were a valued trade commodity only if virgin. It reflected on the menfolk of her family and clan if they either did not raise her properly OR the men failed in their duty to protect her value. Either way, any tinge of questionable purity was an attack on their status, not to mention an economic hit, and it must be dealt with fiercely and immediately.

Now I note that Mohammed actually tried to oppose Irb killings which were wildly out of hand in the tribes of his day, and he approved only modest beatings and 'putting the disagreeable woman away' (which the Saudis take to mean indefinite solitary confinement.) But Islam has not been able to grow much beyond its tribal footing, for a variety of reasons, and things like the veil and Irb killing snuck back in pretty rapidly, and then were carried across cultures and nations, and are defended, now, even enshrined, as aspects of Sharia family law.

'Political correctness that makes us tell lies may be political, but it is not correct, and it is an invitation to cultural suicide.'

Posted by: Pam at May 4, 2007 06:08 PM

Alphie: Only someone with a political or religious axe to grind would blame Christianity for these crimes, though.

Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Yezidis of the region carry out "honor crimes." They are older than Islam.

I don't know if the Jews in Arab countries (before they were ethnically cleansed) did it, as well. Either way, it's not a Muslim thing, it's a regional thing. And there is absolutely no point defending it for any reason whatsoever.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 06:15 PM

Pam: I did find a mention, MJT, that in Turkey, where it is illegal, the highest rate of reputed killings is in the Kurdish area.

This is almost certainly true. Turks are a lot more liberal and modern than the Kurds of Turkey. Likewise, the Kurds of Iraq and Iran are a lot more liberal and modern than the Kurds of Turkey.

Turkish Kurdistan is backward and violent. It is not where you want to go on holiday when you visit Turkey.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 4, 2007 06:17 PM

Alphie:

In many countries the most dangerous condition for a woman is pregnant. Failing to educate women and also refusing to allow proper medical care by any educated male (a male participating in childbirth is a sin according to a Muslim Pakistani) may account for more untimely female deaths in some countries than any other cause. The address is the same as murder: a gravesite of a young woman.

The desert pagan practice of stoning and related honor killings are as ancient as the pyramids in Egypt. A Pharoah threatened Moses with stoning. The Hammurabi Code lists no fewer than 28 crimes that would result in a sentence of death or maiming. Many cultures set most of those ancient punishments and claims aside, other cultures have failed to change.

Posted by: JAS at May 5, 2007 12:54 AM

Horrible incident, but on another level it's understandable. These very small communities would not be around if they didn't exercise punishments for inter-marriage.

Posted by: tg at May 5, 2007 10:00 AM

liming 07年08月30日

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level