The American President fighting French Unilateralism

[KurtNilsen]

The Suez crisis.

I am no PHD in history, but have often thought of the Iraq war and compared it to the Suez crisis.

Here the French, and the British in a secret plot against the arab world (Egypt) teams up with Israel, only to be thwarted by Eisenhower, who goes to the UN and decries such unilateral adventures.

The British PM, Anthony Eden, is forced to resign in shame after the US bullies England into submission. Threatens to sink the UK economy.

De Gaulle is incenced and charts a more independent foreign policy for France after having been stabbed in the back by the United States.

How the roles have been reversed?

Any thoughts?

[BonjourUSA]

1. de Gaulle always watched USA with a suspicious mind.

Suez Crisis is a reason but we have to remind the WWII too.

American wanted to create an US protectorate in France. They organised a French govt and printed a "French" currency. De Gaulle fought this imperial US policy with Churchill's discrete but skillful support. He never forgave. He was a real ally (Cuba affair for instance) but he always denounced the US hegemonic tendency and he wanted to develop an independent French foreign policy which could have been often at loggerheads with the US one.

[Solon]

2. Doesn't help that U.S. plotted to assasinate him either. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

5. i never knew that bit o' history

could you give sources in which i can learn this bit of history myself? something that could be reasonably found in the land of 'freedom of speech.' 'surprisingly' many of our textbooks are breezy hagiographic affairs.

[charlie]

3. How can

French intrigues, in concert with Brits and Israelis, be deemed "unilateralism"?

Does it have something to do with the recent supplanting of "French" in "Freedom Fries", Kurt?

[KurtNilsen]

6. It can be deemed unilateralism because these three nations

plotted an act of war without consulting the UN.

I don't understand the bit about freedom fries.

I just find the Suez crisis to be an interesting piece of post WWII history, particularly since I feel that the United States betrayed the French and the Brits.

[NoPasaran]

4. I don't think the knife went too deeply into DeGaulle's back

Since he was not in power at the time.

No doubt it reinforced his opinion that France should depend on its own forces for its defense though.

http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_docs/pubs_docs/PDF_Files/Peder%20OP%20Folder/dreamweaver/contents/sect8.html

[KurtNilsen]

7. That's what you get for learning your history from wikipedia :-)

"From the point of view of general de Gaulle, the Suez events demonstrated that in case of actual need, France should not have to rely on allies, especially the United States, which may pursue different objectives. "

[bobbieinok]

8. do I understand correctly that anyone can add/modify Wikipedia articles??

[KurtNilsen]

11. It seems to be that way..... I just added an extra puncuation mark at the

end.

Ooops :-)

[theboss]

9. Not sure where the analogy is

I don't see the war in Iraq and Suez Canal crisis as analogous except by the fact that it shows Western interference in the Middle East. The main problem is that the Suez Canal crisis exposed France and Britain as the second-tier powers that they had become. Both countries still harbored some imperial aspirations, but the crisis revealed that without backing from the US or Soviets, their influence barely extended beyond Europe.

No matter what happens in Iraq, the US's position as a superpower is not going to be in jeopardy.

But like I said, the one parallel is the simple contination of the belief that the Middle East does not really have independent states. It has leaders that the West sees as pawns on a chessboard.

Make no mistake. French resistance to the war is not due to the French suddenly discovering international law or taking an interest in human rights. It's largely due to the French investment in Iraq and an attempt to still show themselves as a world power.

[KurtNilsen]

14. I must admit that I posted this thread, not so much to discuss

the current crisis, but to talk about the historic event by itself.

I think your post was excellent in that respect :-)

One parallel I find interesting though is that the French viewed this as a betrayal by the US much in the same manner as the "freedom fries" crowd views the French actions of last year.

[theboss]

15. The problem with the French is that they are, well, French

. . . if I may borrow an Eddie Izzard argument.

Anyway, the US reacion to the French is simpy the same knee-jerk patriotic reaction we always give when we view we've been insulted in some way. Of course, the country that seems to always do that is France. It's stupid and petty, but that's what makes America what it is.

The difference with the French "hurt" during Suez is France still saw themselves as equals to the US on the world stage and superior in certain "spheres of influence." In other words, France still saw the Middle East as the responsibility of themselves and the British (just as it had been for 100 years). The US saw the entire world as its responsibility in order to slow Soviet expansion.

And the French and Brits were, in fact, pissing off the Soviets to no end. So the US saw a choice: risk full-scale war with the Soviets or support France's neo-imperial aspirations out of some sense of "friendship." The US told France to go piss up a rope. And France realized that they were just a strategic partner to the US in the Cold War and did not have a "special relationship."

Oddly enough, the Brits (in their very British way) accepted this second-class status, kept the stiff upper lip, and decided to play "wise uncle" to the upstart Americans for the next fifty years. Tony Blair is still playing this role.

The French - as you said - decided to prove themselves to be independent so they kept selling weapons to anyone with a checkbook and fucking up civil wars in Africa and Asia.

[BonjourUSA]

16. The USA were our best western competitors on the weapons market

in Africa, Asia and anywhere else.

[theboss]

17. No one's denying that......

I'm just pointing out the different reactions between the Brits and French.

[theboss]

10. PS Unilateralism means "one"

Three countries acted against Egypt in the Suez.

[KurtNilsen]

12. Alright... I should have said trilateral... But, you are nitpicking...

The point should be obvious.. If not, than any claims of the Iraq war being unilateral by the US is off course silly.

[theboss]

13. Well, I think it is silly to call it unilateral

I'm sure the Brits are their too. I prefer "in defiance of global opinion."

But I'm attorney; I nitpick.

Anyway, I still don't fail to see a real analogy. Especially since Nassar survived the war and Hussein is probably going to be executed.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

18. .

.