Ruinous charade in the Middle East

The all-time record for lengthy conflicts has long been the Hundred Years War, fought between England and France in the late Middle Ages. However as the state of war, hot and cold, between Israel and its Arab neighbors approaches a sixtieth anniversary with no end in sight, that record may be in jeopardy. Just about as old as the war is the endlessly futile “Middle East Peace Process” that it spawned. Generally what the “peace process” has been about is efforts to compel Israel to give back at the peace table those lands which the militarily incompetent Arabs had lost on the battlefield during their three failed invasions of Israel (1948,1967, and 1973).

Not surprisingly, Israel has been reluctant to give back anything, since the Arabs are not even willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Americans came to know a lot about the Middle East conflict because during its first forty years it was a major arena in our Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. That contest has long been over but the problems in the Middle East remain as intractable as ever.

What has changed in recent years is the attitude of many participants in this long-running tragedy. In earlier days Israel could count on support from not just the U.S., but also the region’s former colonial powers Britain and France, and in fact most members of the United Nations. Today the U.N. is the absolute epicenter of anti-Israel sentiment, and Britain and France along with many other Western nations have decisively tilted away from Israel and toward the Arabs.

What explains this strange transformation? Has Israel become more villainous in its stubborn insistence on a right to exist? Have the Arabs become sympathetic nonviolent paragons of sweet reason? No, none of the above.

What has happened is a truly strange cultural-political transformation of Western elites so striking that they would be utterly unrecognizable to their counterparts of say, 1960.

Henry Clay famously said “My country, right or wrong”. Today, Western elites have flat-out reversed that to read “My country, always wrong.” In the U.S. this attitude is well exemplified by prominent Democrats and other left-wing luminaries who have fawned over a series of tinpot Latin dictators from Castro, to Daniel Ortega, and most recently the clownish Hugo Chavez.

In the Middle East context, Bill Clinton established a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization by inviting the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat to the White House; a little later Hillary was giving Mrs. Arafat a big hug at the U.N. Of late Jimmy Carter went Clinton one better in declaring Israel to be an “Apartheid State”.

In post-Christian Europe the loathing for Israel is even more pathological and often indistinguishable from outright Anti-Semitism. Recall the French ambassador who described Israel as “a sh____ little country”.

All of which brings us to the recently concluded Middle East summit at Annapolis, Maryland, sponsored by the U.S., which the elites instantly transformed into another festival of Bush-bashing. Why had he “waited seven years” to hold a summit? “Why hasn’t he done more?”

In the view of the elites, U.S. policy should have but one goal: strong-arm Israel into conceding everything to the Palestinians.

Actually President Bush has done quite well. Early on he concluded that strong support for our only reliable ally in the Middle East was a no-brainer and he therefore refused to have any dealings with the terrorist Arafat, who died pining for a White House invitation that never came.

This support enabled Israel to effectively defend itself against the Intifada, and ultimately it provoked a useful split in the Palestinian ranks between irreconcilable fanatics (Hamas) and a group that would at least talk to the Israelis.

No peace process in history has succeeded unless “conditions on the ground” were favorable to that result. The best and most moral position for the U.S. is continued strong support of Israel while we await the emergence of such conditions.

Sustaining a slavish adherence to the illusory Middle East “peace process” is a charade that risks the ruin of Israel and a mortal blow to U.S. interests throughout the region.

Long before being Colorado Education Commissioner (1997-2007) , Dr. Moloney did graduate work in Russian and world history at Oxford and the University of London.

France bleeds from Sarko's cuts

France's dirigiste president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is just back from a state visit to China, where he unscrupulously traded French opposition to Taiwanese independence for billions of euros in lucrative contracts for thankful French “national champions”. He may also, for all we know, have obsequiously thanked his hosts for giving the world ling chi -- although it is doubtful whether even the totalitarian Chinese leaders enjoy being reminded of that barbaric form of execution which we know in English as the death by a thousand cuts, a practice not abolished by the country until 1905.

If they ever feel the need to take a refresher course in the technique, though -- in order to, say, subdue Taiwanese aspirations -- Mr. Sarkozy is the right teacher for them. After all, he has already had Hugo Chavez for lunch at the Elysee Palace, and Muhamar Khadafi is popping round to Paris in a few days’ time.

Why do I speak ling chi? Well, ever since his election as President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy has actually been mercilessly wielding his knives, and democratic rule in France has been bleeding to death.

Can't the world see the blood flowing as transit workers, students, civil servants, hospital interns, police officers, magistrates, tobacconists and thugs in the Paris suburbs successively take to the streets, go on the rampage and pillage the French Department of Treasury with impunity.

See the gashes on France’s body politic as mindless tribalism and mob rule trump democratic institutions like opposition parties, and democratic mechanisms like free and fair elections, as conduits for problem solving?

See the lacerations as President Sarkozy himself deliberately hollows out the Socialist Party by co-opting some of its more responsible leaders into pointless blue-ribbon commissions -- while dispatching others like Dominique Strauss-Kahn to international agencies like the IMF, creating in the process a vacuum which retarded Marxist outfits are only too happy to fill in order to plunder the nation’s hated wealth-creating bourgeoisie?

See the slits as the French President mangles the mandate trustingly given to him by a solid majority of supposedly reform-minded French voters, by rewarding vile behavior with sugary sweeteners that will only feed demands for more, and counterproductively fatten Leviathan as well?

See the wounds as students get solemn pledges from the government that anemic tuition fees will not rise, that slumbering universities will be soothingly shielded from any kind of invigorating competition, that an extra budget-busting 15 billion euros over five years will be poured into buildings and state-of-the-art equipment that future generations of students will eagerly smash to get what they want, as they take a leaf out of their predecessors’ Little Red Books?

But then, having seen all this, please look away as some of us, French conservatives, humiliatingly tear up our voter cards. Because, you see, our hearts are being skewered by this president's lamentably weak leadership. We feel less and less hope of ever seeing, here in France, "a city shining upon a hill."

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

How new a day between France & US?

President Sarkozy’s speech before the U.S. Congress on Nov. 7 certainly sounded very heartening to friends of America in France. Reversing years of efforts by his predecessors to play a diplomatic zero-sum game in which French international grandeur could only be achieved, as they saw it, by undermining American interests and influence, the address rightfully reiterated French gratitude to the American people for the sacrifices made in two world wars, and formally placed “friendship”, “loyalty”, and a shared “love for freedom and justice” at the heart of Franco-American relations once again. Moreover Mr. Sarkozy’s words eloquently captured the essence of America’s strength when he emphasized that “what constitutes the moral value of America” is that “nothing is owed to [anybody] and that everything has to be earned.” Most remarkably to French friends of America, he also acknowledged the universalistic scope of America’s mission in the world when he explained that “what made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.”

Dispiritingly, though, the limit of Franco-American rapprochement can already be detected in this speech. It shows in the contrast between Mr. Sarkozy’s high-flown rhetoric and his actual defense commitments. It is facile for the French president to grandly claim that “loyalty between the French and the American people has never failed” and that “in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side… support each other and help one another.” But hard-headed American policy-makers might justifiably retort that in recent decades the “loyalty” has been fairly one-sided and that, despite the encouraging news from Iraq that the surge is having some effect, these are still “times of difficulty, times of hardship” for America there.

This would be exactly the right time for the French president, if he really means what he says, to “stand by” America and “support” her by sending French combat troops to Iraq or by providing some sort of logistical support for American soldiers there. After all, Mr. Sarkozy urged France and the U.S to “fight terrorism together”, straight-facedly asserted that “America can count on France” and pledged that “terrorism will not win.”

Yet by pointedly failing to even mention Iraq in his speech, the French president clearly signaled that, unlike the Bush Administration, he does not regard the war in Iraq as strategically central to the broader war on terror. French media have equally been silent about reports of American military progress there and consistently stressed that French opposition to American intervention has been vindicated because the war has been lost.

French tough-talking on Iran may well have limits too. In a sharp, staccato burst in his address, Mr. Sarkozy uncompromisingly vowed that “the prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable.” However in an interview with the New York Times a few days before addressing the U.N. General Assembly in September, he distanced himself from the martial words of his own foreign minister by unambiguously ruling out the prospect of French participation in any military pre-emptive strikes against Iran, let alone any full-blown war. Bearing in mind the counterproductive nature and downright inefficiency of economic sanctions, realists can legitimately question the reliability of French assertions that “America can count on France.”

Ominous signs can also be read all over Mr. Sarkozy’s plans for more robust European defense capabilities. Ultimately his plans are not necessarily for Europe to selflessly relieve America from the human, financial and technological burden of protecting Europeans while pursuing similar strategic goals. Indeed Mr. Sarkozy intends to be a “friend who stands on his own two feet, an independent ally, a free partner.”

The independence he is talking about could only be achieved through the development of stronger European military capacities with a view to wielding greater influence within NATO. As the French president put it himself, “the more successful we are in the establishment of a European defense, the more France will be resolved to serve its full role in NATO.” In other words, solidify Europe and use it to negotiate France’s return to the NATO fold from a position of strength. Given the ingrained nature of anti-Americanism among French elites and Mr. Sarkozy’s own “passionate love for France”, sooner or later, “independence” is bound to sound like “counterweight”, the cherished goal of too many Europeans.

And besides, what evidence is there that Sarkozy’s iconoclastic respect for America will influence French policy beyond his time in office? Unless it does, his successors may well seek to distance themselves from or even thwart America once again. A stronger Europe as well as greater influence within NATO would conveniently give them the tools necessary to do so. In the end, the Sarkozy years might have the potential to paradoxically and self-defeatingly widen the gap between France and the U.S. – instead of bridging it as initially planned.

Writing the other day on NRO, Nile Gardiner cautioned that “an ‘entente cordiale’ with Paris is pragmatic and sensible, but any attempt by Washington to ultimately replace the Anglo-American alliance with a new partnership with France would be both naïve and short-sighted, as well as a highly risky proposition.” I agree.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

Bastiat he's not

As the prattle in France about consumers’ perceived loss of purchasing power reveals, discredited Keynesian and Marxist economic fallacies die hard in old Europe. Das Kapital still wields more influence than The Law, Frederic Bastiat's classic of liberty written about the same time. This being querulous France, consumers and their media proxies have been bitterly complaining for some time about increases in food prices that are reportedly putting staples like meat, milk and bread beyond the reach of too many pocketbooks.

This being statist France, Mr. Sarkozy’s government took the initiative and ceremoniously convened management representatives and labor unions to a grand conference held on the issue in Paris on October 23.

This being “intellectual-struck” France, the disquisitions had augustly been expected to produce groundbreaking, epoch-making alleviations.

This being socialist France, however, the placebo that eventually hogged the limelight in the media has been that old central-planning chestnut, boosting wages by fiat.

Two things about the whole brouhaha stand out. One is the government’s conflicting signals on the issue of higher wages and its mutually exclusive societal aspirations. The other is the stubborn refusal of self-styled French elites to even consider free-market insights in framing the debate, let alone legislation.

Take productivity. As Mr. Sarkozy rightly pointed out in his presidential campaign earlier this year, the only way for people to earn more money and be able to spend more is to increase their productivity and work longer hours. Sound economics. The snag is that Mr. Sarkozy himself has ruled out abolishing the 35-hour work week, the infamous piece of labor-market legislation that has come to symbolize France’s Malthusian instincts and accounted for stagnant wages since its enactment by a socialist government ten years ago.

There is no denying the fact that the French president has delivered on his campaign pledge to encourage people to work more by implementing his plans for tax-free overtime. However the scheme is so convoluted both technically and bureaucratically that it has so far produced only mixed results. Moreover, as the center-right Le Figaro newspaper explained in a recent editorial, although the government is no longer in the business of setting wages across the board, the impression conveyed by its rhetoric is that it still is.

In the wake of Mr. Sarkozy’s earlier tax cuts aimed at boosting investment and job creation, the whole debate has regrettably been conducted against the ideological backdrop of class antagonisms and worker exploitation. Because of the government’s reluctance to further ruffle union feathers at a time of union opposition to pension reform, one relatively safe prediction is that the government will somehow eventually accede to union demands that wages be raised artificially, blithely setting the nation on the primrose path to higher prices as producers pass higher payroll costs on to consumers. The country would then be back to square one.

What then should the government do instead?

Free-market economics suggests that Mr. Sarkozy should try sharper competition among retailers as a way to bring consumer prices down. After all Draconian zoning laws effectively prevent big chains from setting up new stores anywhere. Something along the lines of less regulation is under consideration but anything meaningful in this area will clash with the government’s pledge to protect small city-center retailers who might be driven out of business by larger stores. Indeed French policy has traditionally been to redistribute income from consumers to small storekeepers in order to "preserve the character" of French villages, towns, and cities.

The government might also try building up momentum for greater liberalization in world trade talks to expand consumer choice and cut prices, but again protectionist sentiments among French officials coupled with Mr. Sarkozy’s own dirigiste instincts, as exemplified by his opposition to foreign takeovers of French companies, preclude any realistic chance that free-trade correctives might work.

The lesson to be drawn from these schizophrenic impulses is that empirically-proven, commonsensical prescriptions like higher productivity, less regulation, more competition, more supply-side tax cuts and freer trade are too obvious or too messy or too Anglo-Saxon for French Cartesian minds. The country may have been through many more revolutions than any other in the Western world but, as Alphonse Karr, former editor of Le Figaro once pointed out in a famous epigram, in France plus ca change…

If I were an American voter

When my friend, former US Rep. Bob Schaffer, asked me to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in the name of Franco-American friendship last July on my final visit to his Fort Collins breakfast club before I went back to France, it was one of the most awe-inspiring and proudest moments of my life. In terms of symbolism and unshakeable fealty to the transcendentally humane American experience, voting in an American presidential election as a legal immigrant and naturalized US citizen would undoubtedly rank with that memorable summer morning. As the primary season looms larger and larger in American voters’ minds, and as my own philosophical hopes for mankind rest ever more confidently on America’s uniqueness, allow me to indulge in transatlantic electoral fantasy and to sketch out what my expectations would be if I were an American voter myself.

Well, first, nonvoting wouldn't even be an option. I would expect to experience the same high degree of enthusiasm and determination that characterized my decision to vote against the ultimately socialistic and liberticidal aspirations contained in the European Constitution which French voters ended up disapproving in a 2005 referendum held. Sitting on my hands on Election Day, at a time when so much is at stake in terms of individual freedom and national security in the United States right now, would be irresponsible and cowardly, if not downright seditious.

Speaking of Europe, I would also expect my candidate to solemnly pledge to strengthen America’s foundations and enhance the country’s role as a beacon to the rest of the world by unambiguously repudiating Europe’s Faustian social-welfare solicitude... its socialistic, high-taxing, growth-killing, unemployment-friendly economic policies... its relativistic attempts to separate responsible individual freedom from the prescriptions for self-discipline and self-restraint derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage... and its squeamishness in foreign affairs.

In other words, I would look for a candidate who would resist the temptation to infantilize the American people, instead invoking the Reaganesque spirit (in advance of Reagan's own presidency) of that 1976 Republican Party platform where conservatives fearlessly declared their belief that “liberty can be measured by how much freedom you have to make your own decisions – even your own mistakes.”

As my description of the ideal candidate makes clear, Democratic hopefuls would be unsuitable as they seek to be too liberally European. The question boils down to this then: Does any one of the current top-tier candidates in the Republican field meet my criteria?

Well, although I welcome Mitt Romney’s conversion to many conservative ideas and applaud his energy and articulateness, I question his authenticity and philosophical resilience in a general election campaign.

I also salute Fred Thompson’s entry into the race as a prod to the other candidates to keep to the conservative straight and narrow -- but I resent his nonchalance.

As for Rudy Giuliani, I believe he is very much mistaken if he regards the abortion issue as having been democratically settled once and for all when the U.S. Supreme Court made its Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

And yet, I would vote for Rudy Giuliani. I would have every confidence in his resoluteness and his dispassionate ruthlessness in the war on terror. I find evidence of that in an article he wrote for the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs in which he concludes that “we have learned that evil must be confronted – not appeased – because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.”

I would find comfort and inspiration in Giuliani's free-market credentials. I would trust his commitment to appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, to oppose partial-birth abortion and to stand up for traditional marriage.

Dr. James Dobson and other religious leaders have upped the ante lately by threatening to support a third-party candidate of their own if Mayor Giuliani were to win the Republican nomination. They are right to flex their muscles as endorsements are starting to be made -- but in fairness, Mr. Giuliani’s pledges suggest he would be doing nothing less than President Bush himself, who has consistently been described as amenable to religious concerns.

After all, even Mr. Bush did not push the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment very hard and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Is it fair to hold Mr. Giuliani up to standards which others, who have been hyped as more conservative than he is, have apparently failed to live up to?

Finally, unless conservatives are willing to hand over the White House to the Democrats in the hope that four or eight years of relentless liberalism will energize conservatives even more and engineer the emergence of a vibrantly conservative candidate with a consistently conservative record next time around, they have to admit that only Rudy Giuliani stands a realistic chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in November 2008.

What is at stake here is America’s willingness to remain America. When Mr. Giuliani says in Foreign Affairs that “the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end”, and that “preserving and extending American ideals must remain the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic”, I believe him -- and I believe he can deliver.

P.S: Bob, good luck with your US Senate campaign in Colorado.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, or should we say nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado, and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.