Smooth and likeable, Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to the United States, spoke to a roomful of American reporters Wednesday at a hotel two blocks from the White House. And if you thought the differences between the United States and France were many and wide and deep, you were wrong. In his opening remarks, he took up the subject of French-bashing in the United States, saying he views it “with great sadness.” Facts prove the criticism of France to be baseless, Levitte told the reporters.
The ambassador was clever in his use of facts. He noted that the only time France has vetoed a Security Council resolution favored by the United States was in the Suez crisis in 1956, when America was on the same side as the Soviet Union. Also, he said the United States gets far more oil from Iraq today than France does.
Levitte insists that only one difference matters at the moment and that’s how long arms inspectors should be allowed to keep roaming around in Iraq. And it’s not that big a problem, only one of timing, no more.
Should the U.N. inspections admit failure in a few months, Levitte said, France would be ready to join the United States in using force against Iraq. But why now? “We still have room for peaceful disarmament of Iraq. We are not alone in expressing our preference for more inspections.” France wants to let them run for at least a few more months.
Here are some issues on which you might have thought France and America were divided, but no:
–“You don’t have anti-Americanism in France,” according to Levitte. This will be news to generations of American tourists. Sure, there are lots of French who oppose President Bush on war with Iraq, Levitte says, but that’s different.
–The French are grateful. The United States came to France’s aid in two world wars and “we will never forget that,” Levitte says. For two centuries since France supported the American revolution, the two countries have stood “side by side.”
–France takes a back seat to no one in disapproving of Saddam Hussein. “We agree on Saddam Hussein,” Levitte said of France and the United States. “He’s a bloody dictator. No doubt about it.” Strong letter to follow. On the other hand, France is skeptical of both regime change in Iraq and an effort to impose democracy there, Levitte added. And besides, Iraq hasn’t attacked a neighbor since 1990. By losing the Gulf War, the Iraqis “learned the lesson the hard way.”
–French companies haven’t signed any oil deals with Iraq that would go into effect if sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted. What about deals agreed on but not yet signed? Levitte wasn’t asked. “If we were interested in oil,” Levitte argued, “I think we would join the U.S. military action soon.” Nor has France sold spare arms parts to Iraq, he said.
–France is not angling to restrain American military power in the world. “We don’t see any danger with American military power,” Levitte said. The problem is too little military power in “failed states,” which become a breeding ground for terrorists.
–On the doctrine of preemption–attacking an enemy before he attacks you–France is partially on board with the United States. Should terrorists pose an imminent threat, “of course you don’t have to wait for the blow to come,” Levitte said. But it can be “dangerous” should countries start attacking other nations with preemption trotted out as the justification.
On Iraq, allowing time for more inspections wasn’t the only reason Levitte cited for opposing a British-American resolution in the Security Council that would lead to war with Iraq. He claimed Saddam Hussein isn’t an “imminent threat.” Many of Iraq’s arms have been destroyed, he said, “so we don’t see this as an imminent threat. Maybe we are wrong.” Maybe so.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
