America's friends

France used to have a treaty commitment to defend Chad; in fact, when Libya's Qadaffi sent troops to invade Chad, the French Foreign Legion promptly went in and threw the Libyans right back out. Whether that commitment is still in force, I don't know.

 

France's main zone of influence is of course the former colonies in western africa.
The currency of these countries are tied to the french franc(and now to the euro).
France has indeed defence comittements to a lot of it's former colonies in Africa.

As oil has been found recently along the coast of many of these countries, their importance will most probably increase in the eyes of the french governement.

 

Your last statement. France will show no mercy for that oil.

 

Agreed.

 

France also now has huge goodwill in the Middle East (from Arab nations).
Although oncce hated for supplying arms to Israel, this is forgotten, as France said 'non' to Bush.

 

Yeah, though not from any concern over the Arabs, or what might happen to them. The French just wanted to protect that $80 billion dollar contract they had with Saddam Hussein for the Iraqi oil.

And people say Americans are mercenaries, or care about nothing but oil... :roll:

 

Well, I'm not saying this contract was innocent in France's attitude towards the Iraq crisis, but it was not one of the main reasons why France refused the war.
The most important reasons for this were:

1.In january 2003, the french governement was informed by secret service that Iraq definately did not have operational WMDand did not have an atomic program.Besides that, french secret service found no signs of a programm/production of chemical/bacteriological weapons.

2.The concept of "preventive strike" was rejected because it means the end of the world order that was created after WW2 which condemms wars of agression.What if tomorrow China says "Taiwan is developping WMD, we must not led them"There would be no international order at all any more.

3.The actual chaotic situation in Iraq was predicted by many people here.No one knows where this is gonna lead.Islamic radicals are becoming stronger and stronger, Bin Laden, the worst ennemy of the western world is the biggest winner of the whole Iraq crisis.

I'm not saying that french foreign policy is usually any bether than any other countries foreign policy but in the case of the iraqi crisis I think the french(and many others) way definately was the right one.

 

theres a pretty shaky relationship between canada and the U.S

 

Gentlemen,

I was browsing the net on various military forums when I read on this thread serious accusations about France's attitude towards Britain during the Falklands war based on an article stating that French technicians "apparently continued to work on the aircraft (etendards) and Exocets" during the conflict.
I would like to put further insight on France's role during this war by giving the opinion of Britain's secreteray of defense at the time on that matter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... Fnot13.xml

How France helped us win Falklands war, by John Nott
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 13/03/2002)


FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.

In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.

Although Lady Thatcher clashed with President Mitterrand over the future direction of Europe, he immediately came to her aid after Argentine forces invaded the Falklands in April 1982.

"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.

The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.

"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.

"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable."

He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator."For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."

Caspar Weinberger, the US defence secretary, supported Britain but the State Department was "dominated by Latinos".

"There was incredible pressure from the White House and the State Department to negotiate. It was hugely damaging," Sir John told The Telegraph. "They couldn't understand that to us any negotiated settlement would have seemed like a defeat."

Asked if he found it irritating that the Americans expected Britain's total support in the war against terrorism, Sir John said: "I am against the Americans smashing things up with bombing raids, then letting us be the auxiliary policemen to pick up the pieces."

Sir John says he held the Foreign Office "in deep contempt" for the caution it displayed when Lady Thatcher proposed sending the Task Force to the Falklands.

---------

This article of the BBC also mentions Nott's informations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1870311.stm

So it seems that France gave Britain the codes of the Exocets to allow MI6 agents to sabotage those on the market plus gave RAF pilots combat training versus French Etendards and Mirage aircrafts.

Why did Mitterand do that ? Well, maybe because France and Britain are closer allies that some may think/like and maybe because France is a country with numerous overseas posessions and could experience one day what Britain faced in 1982.
My two cents,

Rémi

 

Not surprisingly that article fails to mention the refueling capabilities provided by the US, without which the British task force would not have reached the Falklands nor the satellite reconnaissance intel provided.
As far as diplomatic pressure to reach a negotiated settlement, I fail to see how that equates to failing to support an ally. The Argentines were an important US ally in the area who were helping to implement new US policy initiatives in Latin America. Had a negotiated settlement been reached the loss of both British and Argentine lives would have been prevented. Negotiations with a country like Argentina is not the same thing as negotiating with the likes of Saddam or Qaddafi.
To portray the French as Britains best ally at the expense of the US is a slap in the face to America though considering the anti- US rhetoric that often is forthcoming from some segments in the UK not a particularly surprising one.

 

[

It's largely true tough, but folklore in both Britain and France does not readily accept it.

Britain and France have been allies in most wars sine the 1850's.
Started in the Crimean war(1852-55), then WW1(14-18), WW2,(39-45) the Suez Crisis, Gulf war....
Certainly in the 20th century there were not much as lasting alliances as the french-british one.

Somewhat surprising, because in our younger days(as we grew up together) we were at war with one another for some 300 years.

 

[

I think you've been reading too much tabloid press, cheekey monkey.

If europeans dislike France, how come that France is by very very far europeans most favourite tourist destination?(78.000.000 visitors a year, Spain is second with some 40.000.000)
Would you visit a country you dislike??

And how come that french is the second most learnt foreign language in Europe next to english.They could learn some other language instead.


And if brits dislike France, why are they buying Houses in France at an incredible pace.(Much more so than any other foreigners)
Every year thousands more brits come to live to France.(Actually the brits are France's fastest growing minority)
They could buy much cheaper houses in other european countries.
So they probably don't dislike France that much.

Also, french football players are among the most popular in english clubs.

So I really do not think that the english dislike France.
Of coure there still are some old prejudices around, and the brits will never understand how the french can eat frogs, the french on the other side will never be able to understand how the brits can live in a country where it rains every single day ......but that are only trivial problems.

Generally I think that France and Britain are closer to each other then both of them would like to admit.

 

I was surprised the Telegraph of all papers ignored the US help received during the campaign. One thing I would disagree with is the Argentine regime of the late 70's - it had little to put it ahead of Saddam and Qaddafi on a moral level.

 

Well, to be fair, it wasn't widely publicized since the US was trying to appear reasonably neutral due to the close relations with Argentina however once it became apparent that diplomacy would not settle the issue there was no significant debate within the government about which side the US would favor. Assistance was given but the details were kept quiet for some time after the event.
As to the Argentinian regime well AFAIK they didn't invade neighboring countries and torture and murder their populace as in Kuwait, use chemical weapons against ethnic or minorities(or out of favor religious sects) within their country or finance terrorist organizations that blow up civilian airliners..I could go on and on...that being said the Argentines were not a model of western style enlightened democracy either.

 

They were the agressors in casus belli, though. You can create gradations in moral righteousness or evil of governments but in the end it is only reasonable to come to the aid of the defenders, especially if they are your allies (and if they have a case).

Just a minor point.

Don't you think it should be possible to criticize countries? I could name at least one thing certain American circles have recently thrown at the Dutch that this country didn't take offence at even though it was quite a grave "slap in the face". I'm just wondering if your comment is meant as a point of criticism.

 

Roel wrote:

Of course. Believe it or not, on other forums, where Americans are in the majority I have been labelled a rather harsh critic of the US and it's policy.
Of course, on those forums there are many others who point out the positive aspects of the US providing some counterbalance whereas on this forum I am usually the lone US defender amongst a chorus of attacks; many of which are based on reason and logic ( I count you among that group) but many of which are based on ignorance and bias, merely repeating partisan and political rhetoric often picked up from US political opposition party sources who, as in politics everywhere, engage in smear campaigns that can sway voters despite a lack of evidence for their charges.
Getting back to your query, if the criticism is well founded or at least justifiable and not based on erroneous assumptions, then fire away

 

Resonably neutral in the same way they were in 1940/41?? (much to our benefit)

:smok: :smok:

 

Like any nation not all French are bad, we do like you really it is a love hate relationship and those who truely know appreciate all help given during the Falklands conflict.

 

The main reason why America stayed as neutral as it did was to show the Eastern bloc that the independent nations within NATO can fight without American troops, Fuel and ammo was given/sold in large quantities. The CIA did help with the deception in purchasing Exocets.

The above I have know proof of but I have seen sufficient credible evidence of.

 

[

This is very true.
Simply "bashing" a certain country just because of dislike or for the fun of it is wrong, be it the US or any other country.

But seriously, Grieg do you really think you are always unbiased and absolutely logic in your arguments.
Because I have the feeling that some of your comments about Europe, or the UN are not entirely fair too.
Arguably, "Euro" bashing comes as a constant in your posts.

Please do not take this personally, I really enjoy reading your posts(tough I do not always agree).
Just think about it, maybe it will help to improve our discussions even more
If you think I'm wrong, than just ignore this comment.

P.S: I do know that I am not unbiased myself(who really is??), but I'm doing my best to be as objective as possible.