| Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of
the U.N. Security Council could be chosen like the starting
five for the N.B.A. All-Star team — with a vote
by the fans. If so, I would certainly vote France off
the Council and replace it with India. Then the perm-five
would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United
States. That's more like it.
Why replace France with India? Because India is the
world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu
nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation,
and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious
than France these days. France is so caught up with
its need to differentiate itself from America to feel
important, it's become silly. India has grown out of
that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq,
but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France
can't see how the world has changed since the end of
the cold war. India can.
Throughout the cold war, France sought to differentiate
itself by playing between the Soviet and American blocs.
France could get away with this entertaining little
game for two reasons: first, it knew that Uncle Sam,
in the end, would always protect it from the Soviet
bear. So France could tweak America's beak, do business
with Iraq and enjoy America's military protection. And
second, the cold war world was, we now realize, a much
more stable place. Although it was divided between two
nuclear superpowers, both were status quo powers in
their own way. They represented different orders, but
they both represented order.
That is now gone. Today's world is also divided, but
it is increasingly divided between the "World of
Order" — anchored by America, the E.U., Russia,
India, China and Japan, and joined by scores of smaller
nations — and the "World of Disorder."
The World of Disorder is dominated by rogue regimes
like Iraq's and North Korea's and the various global
terrorist networks that feed off the troubled string
of states stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia.
How the World of Order deals with the World of Disorder
is the key question of the day. There is room for disagreement.
There is no room for a lack of seriousness. And the
whole French game on Iraq, spearheaded by its diplomacy-lite
foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, lacks seriousness.
Most of France's energy is devoted to holding America
back from acting alone, not holding Saddam Hussein's
feet to the fire to comply with the U.N.
The French position is utterly incoherent. The inspections
have not worked yet, says Mr. de Villepin, because Saddam
has not fully cooperated, and, therefore, we should
triple the number of inspectors. But the inspections
have failed not because of a shortage of inspectors.
They have failed because of a shortage of compliance
on Saddam's part, as the French know. The way you get
that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by
tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat
that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved
war.
Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam's government
pass "legislation to prohibit the manufacture of
weapons of mass destruction." (I am not making
this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why,
if America didn't exist and Europe had to rely on France,
most Europeans today would be speaking either German
or Russian.
I also want to avoid a war — but not by letting
Saddam off the hook, which would undermine the U.N.,
set back the winds of change in the Arab world and strengthen
the World of Disorder. The only possible way to coerce
Saddam into compliance — without a war —
is for the whole world to line up shoulder-to-shoulder
against his misbehavior, without any gaps. But France,
as they say in kindergarten, does not play well with
others. If you line up against Saddam you're just one
of the gang. If you hold out against America, you're
unique. "France, it seems, would rather be more
important in a world of chaos than less important in
a world of order," says the foreign policy expert
Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered
the World."
If France were serious about its own position, it would
join the U.S. in setting a deadline for Iraq to comply,
and backing it up with a second U.N. resolution authorizing
force if Iraq does not. And France would send its prime
minister to Iraq to tell that directly to Saddam. Oh,
France's prime minister was on the road last week. He
was out drumming up business for French companies in
the world's biggest emerging computer society. He was
in India. |